How is Brexit proceeding? Everything OK?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,974
7,891
136
There's no choice now because the choice was then. 50% is enough uncertainty, or the threshold for staying should have been set higher than 50%, on the grounds that staying is harder to undo than leaving. It's not symmetrical.

That makes no sense as a reply to my post. The first sentence is just paraphrasing what I said, more-or-less. The second sentence is simply false - staying is much easier to undo than leaving.

Edit - I mean, a changing of mind about staying would involve staying in for a bit longer, _then_ leaving. Which is quite obviously less work and disruption than the reverse, which would involve going through the long-drawn out leaving process, and then going through an equally long-drawn out rejoining process. Your stance is clearly nonsense.

And there _is_ a case that the question wasn't asked correctly in the first place, in that the specifics of what leaving meant were not spelt out. But I do think a second vote is not going to happen, so I suppose the least-bad outcome would be a 'soft Brexit' that did at least win some very minor gains over things like free-movement in return for losing a political say over the EU's direction.

Also the EU may yet fall apart anyway making it all moot in the end.
 
Last edited:

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
30,337
7,987
136
Or is it a giant god damn mess?

How are you guys feeling right now about your future?
It's a giant god damn mess.

The government is trying to negotiate in the usual way politicians do, backstabbing their colleagues, leaking to the press, lying to the public... Unfortunately for them in these negotiations the EU don't care about the British press or British public opinion. Its left the government looking absolutely feeble.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
That's the weakest possible example you could have come up with! For starters it's only true in the US, a country with _vast_ amounts of land available. Secondly it has very little to do with capitalism - land is the one thing capitalism really isn't very good at producing. I suspect even a socialist US would have allowed homes to get larger, as over time more land is going to get built on.
It's weird because there are no shortage of better stats you could have used to make that point, that one is the least convincing.

The average home in the UK has in fact shrunk considerably over the last 20 years, in part due to population growth, in part due to very uneven land ownership patterns.

You have missed the underlying point. In the US, which is highly capitalist, we are seeing the average improve. Home size, cars, electronics, appliances, ect are owned at far greater rates. Simply put, capitalism does its job and gives people more things. Things that raise the standard of living.

I dont know much about the UK, but its far more socialist than the US, but I did find this.

Machin-Fig-1.jpg


It looks like only post 2008 did your real earnings start to go down. Did the UK get more capitalist during that time?
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
30,337
7,987
136
You have missed the underlying point. In the US, which is highly capitalist, we are seeing the average improve. Home size, cars, electronics, appliances, ect are owned at far greater rates. Simply put, capitalism does its job and gives people more things. Things that raise the standard of living.

I dont know much about the UK, but its far more socialist than the US, but I did find this.

Machin-Fig-1.jpg


It looks like only post 2008 did your real earnings start to go down. Did the UK get more capitalist during that time?
I'm not sure about who's the most capitalist.

https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
I'm not sure about who's the most capitalist.

https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

The reason for that big drop looks to be the "Large budget deficits and high level of public debt". Its not measuring how capitalist the US is, but how healthy its economy is. Did you read the summary of the countries at all? If not you should, it helps explain what the score actually is. Strange that you would post that link, given the context is how capitalist the country was, and not how healthy its economy is.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
What are the benefits of not sharing sovereignty with Canada? Are you positive both the US and CA wouldn't be economically better of with such a union?

Whataboutism in avoidance of the question.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
30,337
7,987
136
The reason for that big drop looks to be the "Large budget deficits and high level of public debt". Its not measuring how capitalist the US is, but how healthy its economy is. Did you read the summary of the countries at all? If not you should, it helps explain what the score actually is. Strange that you would post that link, given the context is how capitalist the country was, and not how healthy its economy is.
How would you objectively measure how capitalist a country was?
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
How would you objectively measure how capitalist a country was?

A quick and dirty way would be to look at government spending relative to GDP.

US 36%, UK 42.1%

Depending on how you see the military, if you drop that from both countries, then that gap grows even further.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
68,855
26,648
136
But does NAFTA allow unrestricted free-movement between Mexico and the US and say that Canadian and Mexican citizens have to be treated exactly the same as US citizens with regard to employment and all social programmes? Is there a NAFTA parliament?

Come on, NAFTA is not really comparable with the EU, in any sense.
NAFTA isn't really about free trade; it's about the free movement of capital and the free repatriation of profits. In other words, it's a mechanism for international labor arbitrage.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,974
7,891
136
You have missed the underlying point. In the US, which is highly capitalist, we are seeing the average improve. Home size, cars, electronics, appliances, ect are owned at far greater rates. Simply put, capitalism does its job and gives people more things. Things that raise the standard of living.

I dont know much about the UK, but its far more socialist than the US, but I did find this.

Machin-Fig-1.jpg


It looks like only post 2008 did your real earnings start to go down. Did the UK get more capitalist during that time?


But you are missing _my_ point, which is simply that, for the point you were trying to make, the area of a home is the least useful statistic you could have quoted. USA: 85 people per square mile, UK: 660 people per square mile. Your country is almost empty, so home sizes are going to grow fairly easily, whatever the economic system.

Now in a situation where land is scarce, distribution problems are going to be far more significant. Land ownership patterns are a bit screwed up in the UK, but the housing problem has many causes.

What your graph is supposed to demonstrate I don't know. The UK has gotten gradually more capitalist since the late 70's, certainly, and that has coincided with a decline in social mobility, but I wouldn't say that was a simple cause-and-effect. In a sense I think both are consequences of some kind of social or economic process working its way out.

Likewise the US has seen almost all the growth in productivity go to those at the top for decades now.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,974
7,891
136
NAFTA isn't really about free trade; it's about the free movement of capital and the free repatriation of profits. In other words, it's a mechanism for international labor arbitrage.

Might well be, dunno, not an expert on NAFTA. Though I do know that there as many Mexican complaints about it as American - it has had a bad effect on at least some parts of the Mexican population. And I know it doesn't have anything equivalent to the EU's freedom of movement, nor does it include the same idea of a supra-national body that can overrule your courts and legislature. So it's not comparable to the EU.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
But you are missing _my_ point, which is simply that, for the point you were trying to make, the area of a home is the least useful statistic you could have quoted. USA: 85 people per square mile, UK: 660 people per square mile. Your country is almost empty, so home sizes are going to grow fairly easily, whatever the economic system.

Now in a situation where land is scarce, distribution problems are going to be far more significant. Land ownership patterns are a bit screwed up in the UK, but the housing problem has many causes.

What your graph is supposed to demonstrate I don't know. The UK has gotten gradually more capitalist since the late 70's, certainly, and that has coincided with a decline in social mobility, but I wouldn't say that was a simple cause-and-effect. In a sense I think both are consequences of some kind of social or economic process working its way out.

Likewise the US has seen almost all the growth in productivity go to those at the top for decades now.

Its perfectly relevant. In the US, we had more land before, yet homes were smaller. Today, houses are getting bigger because the cost of doing so has gone down. Its true that there are not the same constraints in the US as there is in, well, almost everywhere else, but it still back up the point. When you look at housing in the US the average home size goes up because the cost of building bigger has gone down. Its just that simple.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,382
7,445
136
I seriously doubt the people in the UK are unhappy due to their government's efforts to HELP them. Unless, of course, those efforts might not be effective or determined enough to see the job done. My point was that, as a people, they must have chosen Brexit for a reason of discontent. Something they apparently share with the United States.

Problem for them, leaving the EU won't solve their economic woes. Just as Trump won't solve ours.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,090
136
I seriously doubt the people in the UK are unhappy due to their government's efforts to HELP them. Unless, of course, those efforts might not be effective or determined enough to see the job done. My point was that, as a people, they must have chosen Brexit for a reason of discontent. Something they apparently share with the United States.

Problem for them, leaving the EU won't solve their economic woes. Just as Trump won't solve ours.

Brexit was a close vote where false Russian propaganda played a role, making your analogy with Trump pretty much perfect. If they held that vote again, I highly doubt Brexit would pass.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
Brexit was a close vote where false Russian propaganda played a role, making your analogy with Trump pretty much perfect. If they held that vote again, I highly doubt Brexit would pass.

Well that, and I think a lot of people now realize the implications of their vote.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,382
7,445
136
Even if such votes can be flipped later, it's important to ask how they got there in the first place. What drove the rejection? What drives the hearts and minds of half the people? It isn't Russia that formed a base of discontent. Flaws in our systems need to be addressed.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,974
7,891
136
Brexit was a close vote where false Russian propaganda played a role, making your analogy with Trump pretty much perfect. If they held that vote again, I highly doubt Brexit would pass.

I don't believe Russian propaganda played any significant role. I don't really get the supernatural powers now being ascribed to the Russians, it makes one wonder why the West didn't go communist decades ago.

Probably every Islamic terror attack swayed a few people towards 'leave' due to the anxiety about lack of border control in the EU...but I don't think the Russians have any role in that, being subject to Islamist attacks themselves. Whether they gave any help to UKIP I don't think matters much, UKIP rode a wave of public feeling, they didn't create it. Hence once the vote was out of the way they became an irrelevant farce.

My wild guess would be if the vote were rerun it would be a narrow victory for remain - simply because the economic downsides have become clearer - but the opinion polls say it's far too close to call. People have hardened in their attitudes on both sides. It's all very depressing. None of those responsible for this mess thought things through properly before acting. I don't think we have the same caliber of leaders we had in past decades. Much as I disliked Thatcher, she was _competent_. Not a posh boy dilettante like Cameron or Boris or Clegg.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
30,337
7,987
136
My wild guess would be if the vote were rerun it would be a narrow victory for remain - simply because the economic downsides have become clearer - but the opinion polls say it's far too close to call.

I think that it's also becoming increasingly hard for the pro leave crowd to ignore the fact that the pro leave politicians have absolutely no plan how to handle Brexit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,399
4,457
136
You have missed the underlying point. In the US, which is highly capitalist, we are seeing the average improve. Home size, cars, electronics, appliances, ect are owned at far greater rates. Simply put, capitalism does its job and gives people more things. Things that raise the standard of living.

I dont know much about the UK, but its far more socialist than the US, but I did find this.

Machin-Fig-1.jpg


It looks like only post 2008 did your real earnings start to go down. Did the UK get more capitalist during that time?


Home ownership in the U.S. has been on the decline for more than a decade.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
Home ownership in the U.S. has been on the decline for more than a decade.

Do you honestly think that this has any usefulness here? I'm quite confused as to why you would state that. Its factually incorrect unless you are cherry picking a peak. We are at about the same level as the 60's and just slightly below the 70's. We are also coming out of a recession and things are growing again so that is likely to change if the trend continues.