It is possible that intellectuals can make contributions to managing this crisis of democracy, but don’t count on the corner of the intellectual domain called
“economics.” There economics professors teaching graduate students busily imprison the minds of students in the neo-classical prison or other simplistic mathematical models from which only few escape. Is it not risible, for example, that the macro model employed
by the U.S. Federal Reserve uses the “representative individual” to represent all of us. Because that individual is both creditor and debtor, finance drops out of the model—and that in a model guiding the Fed! (Read Atif Mian and Amir Sufi HOUSE OF DEBT ….
https://www.amazon.com/House-Debt-Recession-Prevent-Happening/dp/022627165X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1467384370&sr=1-1&keywords=atif+mian ). Or, carefully look at our profession’s definition of “social welfare,” another risible conceptual construct.
We are a profession devoted to thinking about averages – annual growth in average real GDP --, with only a few worrying about variances (e.g., Emmanuel Saez). We leave variances to sociologists and political scientists and taxi drivers.
So along with the new political thinking Brexit seems to demand, we economists might junk much of what we teach, excepting behavioral economics, which holds
promise.
I have not seen the Chilcott report, describing the role of the poodle in the Iraq fiasco. May and I suffered mightily as a result of the poodle’s yapping and
still can’t stand this glib grand stander. By the way, our son was in charge of biological weapons gear which for his unit, a light Armored Reconnaissance Regiment (LAR). The poodle had warned us that Saddam could deploy biological weapons on short notice.
Our son’s LAR’s anti biological weapons system—get this—was a truck load of chickens! They were to fasten one chicken to each light armored vehicle and when the chicken died put on their biological suits. But all the chicken died once his unit was over the
berm between Kuwait and Iraq, kicking up enough dust to choke all the chickens. You can imagine how reassured we, his parents, were by this fancy equipment. But the system sure was cheap – maybe even cost effective ex ante. His unit also did not have enough
flak jackets, so the officers gave theirs to the enlisted men. Only the Brits could aptly summarize the preparations for this war. I encourage you to watch this “documentary” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nohGiQmOxlc
From: Anglo-American Health Policy Network [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Alan Maynard
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 4:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: From Elvis Costello's autobiography
As ever you are too nice in your comments on the UK referendum shambles!!
The British referendum was a training ground for Trump and others intent on manufacturing chaos. Sadly opponents are lackluster and rutted in complacent maintenance of gross income and wealth inequalities supported by tax evading/ avoiding
corporate empires. Climate change, resultant migration inflation, and robotics offer some nice challenges for us ineffectual liberals! We should worry about the inheritance of our offspring!
In the meantime the British pantomime continues with laughter drowning in tears!
Be of good cheer despite duplicity and lies clouding our lives
PS Enjoy next week's long delayed Chilcott report on the Iraq war. Blair's love affair with your President cost the world so much!
Sent from my iPad
As one who arrived in England on Sunday night and was blitzed by written utterances from all sorts of friends, I find Calum’s propositions informative even if I don’t agree with any of them completely. The EU debate was simply terrible
and the biggest mistake was putting a ‘rules for making rules’ issue into a yes/no referendum form. That, as well as the lies, distortions, and the Trump like bullying that seems to have made the debate ugly, all call for not treating this as wisdom v. narrow
mindedness. If the forum was wrong, and the decision close, that is hardly what makes for wise governing. I hope this will become a process that will either slow down and thus calm matters while the common market continues and prompt a more serious consideration
of whether the political union fashioned from common market beginnings has what a United States of Europe should be. Getting the question and the forum right turned out in my view to be what went wrong first of all. And what transpired as debate was largely
garbage and justifies little in the way of pride on either side. Or so I think at this point.
Dear All,
As one who voted 'leave', my views:
(1) An enlarged EU is an engine of mobile capitalism in that (a) it enables capital mobility from the core to the periphery and (b) when that is not possible, labour mobility from the periphery to the core. Clearly to go from the Europe
of Ted Heath (6 plus 3) to more than 30, including Turkey in principle, is to go from a post-war cooperation (see below) to something very different.
(2) It may link this to global capitalism if (a) tariffs with the 'rest of the world' are gradually reduced/removed ie EU/other trade deals, within the WTO et al.
(3) The fact that there is a so-called 'European social model', in this context, EITHER (a) means very little OR (b) makes EU countries uncompetitive globally.
(4) Yes, there is a danger of 'right-wing policy' following BREXIT. That presumably means a 'race to the bottom' in terms of labour conditions et al in order to compete. But that is (a) simply a quicker version of 3(a), above, or (b) democracy.
If we can't get a majority for a left-wing policy, then calling-in-aid EU commissars to override national preferences is a recipe for blowback.
(5) The EU was - in its political ambition - a noble post-war endeavour to make European 'great power' war impossible.......or, to put it less politcally-correctly, to lock Germany in to economic prosperity without political power. Yet
now Germany is hegemonic, in terms of sado-monetarism vis-a-vis the European Central Bank - but also in terms of faux-altruism vis-a-vis the refugee crisis etc. Mrs Merkel has a lot to answer for in terms of the de facto collapse of Schengen.
(6) The EU in its politically-correct - like many well-meaning commentators (!) - conflates a rejection of illiberal religion-infused culture with 'racism'. In the USA, Islam is quantitatively insignificant if maybe qualitatively salient
just now. But in England (not the whole UK) and, it seems, in parts of (say) Germany and Sweden, it is a different story. There is a deafening silence on the part of (many, not all) feminists and others concerning Islam's reactionary influence. This is not
to pick on one religion for its own sake (I speak as an atheist.) If I were writing during the middle ages, I would pick on Christianity. But for now, Islam is the clear and present danger: quantitatively in terms of reactionary culture and illiberalism (c.70%
of the 3 million British Muslims do not believe it should be legal to be satirical about the Prophet) and qualitatively in terms of terrorism. Those who say that all the nasty stuff has 'nothing to do with Islam' are being politically correct. Now the EU's
freedom of movement does not immediately affect this. But if Merkel et al are foolish enough to put 70-year-old guilt before common sense, that may change.
(7) The 'pro EU' demonstrations in London last night depicted the EU as starry-eyed idealistic group love-in. The late E.P. Thompson, a Marxist, described it as a capitalist 'group grope'. The latter is more accurate. For a health policy
audience, the PC pro-EU lament reminds me of the lament for the English NHS's lost PCTs after Lansley abolished them (google MC NextGen, 'Lansley Rap). Lansley was an idiot. But abolishing PCTs was not the reason why.
(8) The EU was at the crossroads - neo-liberal beacon or social-democratic protection society. But now it is a declining monolith. Its often-Benelux leaders of recent time are simply lacking insight.
(9) None of this means that BREXIT will change a lot. But the hand-wringing in reaction to it...come off it!
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Popay, Jennie <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Thanks – will have a look. J
Professor Jennie Popay
Director of Engagement NIHR CLAHRC NW Coast http://www.clahrc-nwc.nihr.ac.uk/index.php
Deputy Director NIHR School for Public Health Research http://sphr.nihr.ac.uk
Division of Health Research
Faculty of Health & Medicine
Lancaster University
Furness Building
Bailrigg
Lancaster LA1 4YG
Tel: 01524 593377
<1432B0F7-31DF-4E9F-85E4-6FA281B728DB[66].png>
Dan Ariely has looked at it.
Some non-exhaustive references:
Nina Mazar and Dan Ariely (2006) Dishonesty in Everyday Life and Its Policy Implications. Journal
of Public Policy & Marketing: Spring 2006, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 117-126.
http://journals.ama.org/doi/abs/10.1509/jppm.25.1.117
More
ways to cheat-expanding the scope of dishonesty
N Mazar, O Amir, D Ariely - Journal of Marketing Research, 2008
How honest people cheat
Ariely, D • 2008
Harvard Business Review. Volume 86. 2. Side 24.
I’m sure there is more research on this. I only did a quick search on Google.
Céu.
Actually whether most people would evade tax is an empirical question – I for one don't
evade tax ever although I do wish I could have more influence over where my tax pounds are spent. I know this to be the case with quite a few people around me – where are the data on this?
Before he died Peter Townsend was working for the UN (not sure which agency) developing
ideas for a global tax system – sadly we lost that great advocate for global social justice.
Professor Jennie Popay
Director of Engagement NIHR CLAHRC NW Coast http://www.clahrc-nwc.nihr.ac.uk/index.php
Deputy Director NIHR School for Public Health Research http://sphr.nihr.ac.uk
Division of Health Research
Faculty of Health & Medicine
Lancaster University
Furness Building
Bailrigg
Lancaster LA1 4YG
Tel: 01524 593377
When possible most of the people would evade taxes. Some by asking to be paid cash in
hand some by placing their monies in tax heavens. Panama papers, remember? Who do you think is contributing less to the welfare state?
Global labour markets affect workers all around the world and not only British workers
working in GB.
What Max hasn't added here and from my personal but quite extensive experience is that
all of the 'migrant' workers I or friends/family have discussed employing particularly in the construction sector have asked for cash in hand and I presume pay no tax. This is not the case with the the very small building companies and/or individual contractors
that I have used – presume you economists would recognise that this makes it easier for the former to charge much less per hour and is another irritant for those Brits who "don't like global labour markets"- some are not that keen on a global system that
means both companies and individuals are not contributing to national welfare systems!
Professor Jennie Popay
Director of Engagement NIHR CLAHRC NW Coast http://www.clahrc-nwc.nihr.ac.uk/index.php
Deputy Director NIHR School for Public Health Research http://sphr.nihr.ac.uk
Division of Health Research
Faculty of Health & Medicine
Lancaster University
Furness Building
Bailrigg
Lancaster LA1 4YG
Tel: 01524 593377
<1432B0F7-31DF-4E9F-85E4-6FA281B728DB[2].png>
Well yes. The problem is that many working class Brits, when asked, will proffer first hand
experience of being undercut on jobs or pay by immigrants who are willing to work for far less. When I hired a freelance book keeper Brits wants £25 an hour. Ravi, recently qualified with an ACCA from Oxford Brookes and an Indian citizen wanted £7 an hour.
A local builder in Stoke Newington had a team of Brits who'd worked for him for a decade or more on £35k. He says Polish teams were prepared to work for the equivalent of £18k. So he had to have some very painful meetings with some very old friends.
I voted stay. But it is belittling attitudes like yours, Adam, which drive many to support
parties like the NF. You may not like to acknowledge it, but many Brits have direct experience of a global free market in labour and don't like it much. Funnilly enough, I always had you down as a person who thought markets should be regulated? Or am I wrong?
Me? I employ Indians, Spanish and French. The only person I know well who voted for Brexit was Ravi.
On 29 June 2016 at 09:28, Oliver,AJ <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
Writing about 1977: “Newspaper editorials liked to dismiss the rising popularity of the National Front as a conversation between clowns and
fools. History suggests that underestimating the crude appeal of bigots is usually a mistake.”
I suppose it’s an obvious point, and on this list I’m preaching to the converted. It’s convincing the unconverted that’s the challenge, and
it seems to me that you can’t do that by preaching to them.
<1432B0F7-31DF-4E9F-85E4-6FA281B728DB[66].png>