Comment by palmotea

Comment by palmotea 2 days ago

> The problem with these threads is everybody wants to complain about Trump, but nobody wants to talk about policies that actually help buffer against the far-right. Eg implementing robust safety nets and low inequality, to reduce status anxiety and grievance. How many of you software engineers want to sign up for European-style welfare states and pay for them with high taxes? It's basically tragedy of the commons...

> Economics on its own is probably not sufficient either. You probably also need widespread unionization...

I think you're right about that.

> ...a Cordon Sanitaire, and probably German-style intelligence surveillance of the far-right too.

> Edit: Looking at the comments below you also need a MUCH better education system. FYI 99% of the time immigration is great for the economy, which is why the US has been wholesale accepting immigrants for a very long time.

You're getting off track there.

You also need a democratically responsive government. If the technocrats say "99% of the time immigration is great for the economy" and the people say "we don't want it, less immigration, please," what do you do? If you want a Trump, you say "shut up people, the technocrats say you're wrong, and you're going to get what they recommend good and hard." If you want to avoid a Trump in the future, you say, "OK, we'll tighten the border and reduce immigration quotas."

I don't care how smart or correct you are: if you can't make your case to the people and get your policy widespread popular support, it shouldn't be implemented in a democracy, end of story.

Herring 2 days ago

A lot of western societies are aging. If you don’t import immigrants, you’re on a timer. The economy slows, quality of life drops, and people elect the far right anyway. It’s happening to Japan right now. I’d set up the safety nets and hope enough people will appreciate the better cost of living and reelect sane politicians.

Of course there are no guarantees. People hated Obamacare and punished democrats so hard they lost the most seats since Eisenhower.

Reply View 2 replies

fyredge 2 days ago

If the quality of life was unsustainable without immigration, what makes it sustainable with?
Current immigrants come from countries with high population growth. When their population growth slows down, will they get their immigrants too?

Reply View | 1 reply
- Herring a day ago
  
  > If the quality of life was unsustainable without immigration, what makes it sustainable with?
  Think of it like (internal) trade, it's a win-win. I've been reading about Brexit recently. It's super easy to convince uninformed UK voters that "look the EU is benefiting from trade with us, so if we stop trade we can take all their benefit and keep all our benefit" ... That's not how it works. In the real world it's like Taiwan specializes at chips, China specializes at solar, India specializes at medicines, etc everyone brings something unique to the table and we ALL benefit from working together. It takes a lot of balls to leave your original country family/friends/etc. Immigrants are usually high quality people, it's best to just let them work.
  > Current immigrants come from countries with high population growth. When their population growth slows down, will they get their immigrants too?
  1) How is that your problem? Have you ever been worried about China not having enough immigrants before? The US is extremely well-positioned to win this one.
  2) Yes there will be increased competition for immigrants, but it's really not a bad thing. I'd love it if the UK was politically stable so I could just move over since the US keeps trying to elect Hitler.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

1718627440 2 days ago

> If the technocrats say "99% of the time immigration is great for the economy" and the people say "we don't want it, less immigration, please," what do you do?

Do less immigration where people feel it, invest into economic education of the general populace.

Reply View 5 replies

palmotea 2 days ago

>> If the technocrats say "99% of the time immigration is great for the economy" and the people say "we don't want it, less immigration, please," what do you do?
> Do less immigration where people feel it, invest into economic education of the general populace.
There can be a lot of legitimate disagreement about what the economy should look like or what's "great" for it. It's not just "GDP number go up."
And isn't it undemocratic for a government to be "investing" into educating people to think about and prioritize issues in a certain way (e.g. according to certain economic ideologies, like a technocrat)? A democratic government is supposed to represent its people, not control them to make them "better" according to some official's opinion.

Reply View | 4 replies
- mothballed 2 days ago
  
  You've pretty much nailed why almost all the highest immigration nations are monarchies. You basically need a ruler to tell the populace they are his bitch and they'll get the free market and open work visa immigration (UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain) whether they like it or not.
  It does work and made those countries much richer but basically it won't easily happen under democracies with paths to citizenship for immigrants and strong welfare. For both rational and irrational reasons.
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
  
  palmotea 2 days ago
  
  > You've pretty much nailed why almost all the highest immigration nations are monarchies. You basically need a ruler to tell the populace they are his bitch and they'll get the free market and open work visa immigration (UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain) whether they like it or not.
  > It does work and made those countries much richer
  What, exactly, do you mean by "countries" and "richer"? The monarch is wealthier and more powerful? Some aggregate GDP number went up? More bank deposits?
  There are a lot of ways to make the few gain at the expense of the many, and depending on the statistics you look at, that may look like the country becoming richer. However, those kinds of scenarios are one of the things democracy is supposed to prevent.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  mothballed a day ago
  
  In relatively free market (UAE is ranked pretty high in economic freedom), it should result in the many gaining at the gain of the many. Since people only enter a transaction if they are better off (some exceptions, but by and large). Of course the monarch can tilt the scales, although this is largely done in those countries to benefit the oil industry, which needs outside help and the profits of which are paid out as benefits to citizens.
  The monarch is probably the biggest winner, but that doesn't necessarily mean the citizens are net losers.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- 1718627440 2 days ago
  
  I was more thinking of raising the school budget and increasing the economic part of the curriculum, but for adults I think there is a difference between honest information and manipulative advertisements.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies