NationStates

Also, criticising economists for missing predictions on whether a recession is going to happen or not at a specific point is a bit facetious. You wouldn't exactly expect a dentist to tell you exactly when you'll lose a tooth, but you should trust them when they point out that drinking sugary drinks will increase the likelihood of such.

Also the decision on the euro may well have been made by Gordon Brown, who has a history degree, but it would be a bit silly to ignore the fact that Ed Balls, an economist, was probably instrumental in pushing him towards that plan of action.

I think economists should be criticized more on the grounds that more wealth isn't necessarily the primary thing we should worry about. Certain economic arrangements play havoc on society and culture and peoples mental health and wellbeing, and while they may provide short term benefits economically, overall you can't account for peoples motivation and social decay and stuff.

The neoliberal arrangement makes the numbers look good, but inequality is skyrocketting and we're faced with a small section of society wielding enormous power over the rest who have little recourse. That's a recipe for unhappiness, misunderstanding, and miscommunication. Beyond that, it's degrading peoples health and culture appears to be suffering a decline. You've also got the problem of the balkanization of society through algorithmic, economically sensible, private pandering to peoples preconceived prejudices.
p.

That will have consequences for us in the future as the electorate gets more and more unhinged.

So if economists are going apeshit over brexit, they've only got themselves to blame for ignoring that economic strength isn't the be all and end all of ... well, economic strength. The Brexit phenomanae causing all this hardship would have been avoided if they'd conceded on any of a number of other fronts, but to the economist "THE ECONOMY THO" trumps all argument, and the consequence was a massive backlash in a way that hit them on multiple fronts.

Unless they want everyone to have free and mandatory university education as an economist, they've got to accept that most people don't give a fuck and that they have to let some things go in order to assuage various grievances. Attempting to strongarm literally every aspect of society into serving pure economic strength has caused widespread discontent and shit like Trump/Brexit.

An economist is a person who owns only one book, in other words, and it makes them tiresome for the rest of us. Yes yes, you can quote chapter and verse, and you can act like money is all that matters and march into a brave new world if you like, but the rest of us will recognize that is a dystopian setting, something you don't understand because... it's the only thing you've read.

(Some economists are obviously not like this. I'm discussing the ones who get taken seriously by our current institutions.)

Economists are going crazy trying to prove to the public that they were right all along and brexit is bad because the economy will suffer, just as they predicted.

They're missing the point.

People are saying you're wrong not because they believe brexit is good for the economy, they're saying it because they don't like you and like winding you up because you still haven't understood the conversation isn't actually about your hobby horse.
The economists are fighting a losing battle because nobody fucking cares if brexit is bad for the economy except economists. To the rest of us, it's about other shit, more important shit, and on that front, it wasn't economists fighting, but progressives.

You should view Brexit not as an affirmation of a particular economic viewpoint, but as a rejection of your prioritizing the economy, and a rejection of the progressive narrative on culture. Remember the polls showing most Brexiteers didn't give a fuck about the economy?

They still don't. They're doing it to wind you up. And here's the thing, because economists kept arguing for shit that everyone hates on the grounds that it helped the economy, the people being willfully ignorant and saying shit specifically just to be contrary to economists and wind them up?
A fucking majority mate. They just don't admit it like I do. If you don't want people pushing shit economics, stop demanding economics be the deciding factor in things and then forcing people to live under a system they despise, think about the mechanics at play here. Ofcourse people are going to go around pretending their loony toons economics makes sense, you've made it the only legitimate means to advance what they actually care about, society and culture.

And if you give people two economic visions and one has social consequences they despise and one doesn't, what did you bloody expect to happen?

I'm stunned you didn't see it coming.

Isn't it a little disingenuous to claim that only economists care about the economic impacts of Brexit? Sure, there are other, arguably more important, factors at play, but seeing as how the state of the economy affects us all regardless of how much we may try to ignore it, I don't buy the argument that most Brexiteers do not care a single iota about it. While I wouldn't go as far as to say that the £350 million claim tipped the scales, the overarching point that Brexit would actually improve our economy certainly played a role in why some people voted to leave (though I will concede that it didn't play as large a role as other factors such as sovereignty and immigration).

In addition, it certainly appears to have played a role during elections. Perhaps Bill Clinton would have won in a landslide even without the 'it's the economy, stupid' slogan. Perhaps Gordon Brown would lost the 2010 election even without the recession. Perhaps Jeremy Corbyn would have denied the Conservatives a majority even without the years of austerity. Perhaps Scotland would have voted against independence even if there were unanimous agreement that the Scottish economy would benefit greatly. Indeed, perhaps correlation in these cases does not imply causation. My take on this, however, is that whenever there is an election or referendum, the economy plays a significant role, if not the main role. Not on a macro level, perhaps, but on the level of 'Can I feed my family?' and 'Can I pay for my rent?'.

Even if I accept your argument that most people don't give a damn about economic downsides, perhaps they should? As I said, economics affects us all, debatably even more than a subject like maths does; it would make sense, then, to make it mandatory. I think that mandatory university courses on the subject are disproportionate and impractical, and I could even see the argument that mandatory GCSEs on it have the same downside (albeit on a smaller scale), but surely, laying the basic framework so that the common individual has both interest and understanding will go some way towards alleviating this potential apathy towards such a fundamental part of our lives?

States of Glory wrote:Isn't it a little disingenuous to claim that only economists care about the economic impacts of Brexit? Sure, there are other, arguably more important, factors at play, but seeing as how the state of the economy affects us all regardless of how much we may try to ignore it, I don't buy the argument that most Brexiteers do not care a single iota about it. While I wouldn't go as far as to say that the £350 million claim tipped the scales, the overarching point that Brexit would actually improve our economy certainly played a role in why some people voted to leave (though I will concede that it didn't play as large a role as other factors such as sovereignty and immigration).

In addition, it certainly appears to have played a role during elections. Perhaps Bill Clinton would have won in a landslide even without the 'it's the economy, stupid' slogan. Perhaps Gordon Brown would lost the 2010 election even without the recession. Perhaps Jeremy Corbyn would have denied the Conservatives a majority even without the years of austerity. Perhaps Scotland would have voted against independence even if there were unanimous agreement that the Scottish economy would benefit greatly. Indeed, perhaps correlation in these cases does not imply causation. My take on this, however, is that whenever there is an election or referendum, the economy plays a significant role, if not the main role. Not on a macro level, perhaps, but on the level of 'Can I feed my family?' and 'Can I pay for my rent?'.

Even if I accept your argument that most people don't give a damn about economic downsides, perhaps they should? As I said, economics affects us all, debatably even more than a subject like maths does; it would make sense, then, to make it mandatory. I think that mandatory university courses on the subject are disproportionate and impractical, and I could even see the argument that mandatory GCSEs on it have the same downside (albeit on a smaller scale), but surely, laying the basic framework so that the common individual has both interest and understanding will go some way towards alleviating this potential apathy towards such a fundamental part of our lives?

The rich will make out like bandits and the poor will mostly struggle, but survive, or they will revolt (Hence why the rich leave them enough to struggle, but survive.)
All else is window dressing.

Substantial economic reform being offered would be different, but most economists tend to be against non-capitalist economics.

You're misscharacterizing what's going on, progresssives and liberals are angry at Brexit for being an insular, unnecessary, harmful action that will empower right wing governments to fuck society harder. Economists, and academics in general, tend to be liberal or left leaning - so oppose Brexit on these grounds.

But there's a second thing making economists angry - and it's the massive amounts of disinformation that is being spread about Brexit, the total nonsense and made up figures that were trotted out by the leave campaign - regardless of their actual underlying stance on Brexit, why shouldn't that make them angry? Why shouldn't experts be angry when they see lies about the economic consequences being spread? It has nothing to do with trying to enforce a "neoliberal" (there's that word again) order, and fetishising money - this completely misses the normative/positive distinction culture in economics: economists actively avoid activism and dictating policy because these normative actions compromise good, unbiased research. They don't expect the public to only care about economic consequences, that's an absurd strawman.

Hydesland wrote:You're misscharacterizing what's going on, progresssives and liberals are angry at Brexit for being an insular, unnecessary, harmful action that will empower right wing governments to fuck society harder. Economists, and academics in general, tend to be liberal or left leaning - so oppose Brexit on these grounds.

But there's a second thing making economists angry - and it's the massive amounts of disinformation that is being spread about Brexit, the total nonsense and made up figures that were trotted out by the leave campaign - regardless of their actual underlying stance on Brexit, why shouldn't that make them angry? Why shouldn't experts be angry when they see lies about the economic consequences being spread? It has nothing to do with trying to enforce a "neoliberal" (there's that word again) order, and fetishising money - this completely misses the normative/positive distinction culture in economics: economists actively avoid activism and dictating policy because these normative actions compromise good, unbiased research. They don't expect the public to only care about economic consequences, that's an absurd strawman.

The economic lies arise because of many progressives demonizing anything that doesn't fit their worldview, alongside the "The economy, stupid" mentality, meaning that brexit had to pretend it was about economics. I was perhaps overly harsh on economists, it isn't their fault that part happened. Sometimes it's one, sometimes the other. Regardless of whether economists themselves feel one way or another, economics is portrayed a certain way in the media, and economics is often prioritized when it suits the interests of the rich and such, which has left the public hostile to it.

"Enough of experts" is an expression of that, and its apt. My major point is that is pointless to argue the economics, because in my opinion, it's insincerely argued, and stems from elsewhere. Not necessarily consciously, but nothing will convince them because the reason they say those things is something else.

This is an example of a chilling effect, and how cultural censorship has resulted in political dysfunction.

That Economics has become the establishments major hissy fit over brexit demonstrates that they aren't capable of dealing with the things that caused Brexit.
The same factors exist, and will continue to exist, and people will continue to support measures like it.
Beyond that, I suspect people are aware that the elites will just blame brexit for worsening conditions rather than admit it's their fault for hoarding all the money and austerity nonsense.

The outside chance that Corbyn wins and actually manages to fix the economy and make it fairer could result in people assuming Brexit did the trick, because to the lives of the overwhelming majority, Brexit is a drop in the ocean compared to neoliberal excess.

Thoughts on the Carillion saga? That's a behemoth with government contracts all the way from local councils and NHS through the Ministry of Defence and Atomic Energy Authority to the entire HS2 Phase One contract, along with 50k jobs and innumerable debts to British banks.

Honestly thinking about buying their stock actually. IMHO it's a TBTF and the government will absolutely not let them go bankrupt, it'll end up like RBS. 14p a share is an absolute bargain.

It does show how far it's fallen though. At the moment the company has market capitalisation of 65 million pounds (and debt liabilities of 1.5 billion & pension deficit of 600m), down from 3.70 a share and a former market cap of 1.8 billion.

https://www.rt.com/uk/415633-male-right ... -misogyny/

Minister for men proposed again.

Commenting on the idea, self-proclaimed anti-feminist Elizabeth Hobson told RT: “Is it crazy? I say no but in a way it kind of is, and the reason is because we have a gynocentric society which only cares about women.”

Claiming that boys born in 2016 are 75 percent less likely than girls to go to university, she added: “These are all issues that need to be addressed and need watching over by a minister for men.”

However, journalist and feminist Sarah Robertson had a diverging opinion as she said: “The whole idea is nonsense, men don’t have to fight to become equal citizens, they already are. It is women who are having to fight to become equal citizens with men.”

Note;
"Here are some stats showing a mens issue."
Feminist response was to assert their dogmatic ideology at them, rather than engage with reality, and use circular reasoning to back it up.

She said that one of the battles is in the workplace, as “there is still a huge, ongoing issue with gender pay gap which still hasn’t been resolved. So the idea of a minister for men is just ridiculous.”

Here we see the problem of misandry denial and how it makes problems insoluble. The feminist here is ignoring that the pay gap is caused primarily by mens issues going unaddressed, such as lack of work-life balance for males and lack of paternity leave. Instead she acts like it's proof the government discriminates against women.

Why does she think the pay gap is a womens issue?
Because she thinks women are the oppressed sex, and views all problems through that lens, reinforcing that impression even when it renders problems insoluble.

Menister. Or manister?

Ifreann wrote:Menister. Or manister?

We are but men! Rock! AHHHHHH-ister




Ignore me

Why does everyone have to be so fucking dichotomous about gender politics? Men have problems. Women have problems. Men cause problems. Women cause problems. Can we stop arguing about who has it worse and whose fault it is, and get on with solving them?

Philjia wrote:Why does everyone have to be so fucking dichotomous about gender politics? Men have problems. Women have problems. Men cause problems. Women cause problems. Can we stop arguing about who has it worse and whose fault it is, and get on with solving them?

Sounds good to me. For our first challenge, we've got to deal with the way the media presents domestic violence and rape, ignoring female perpetrators and male victims in its journalistic advocacy and campaigning, and oh look, now you see why it's dichotomous.

When "Get on with solving it" involves telling feminists to stop being so gynocentric, it has to be dichotomous. The tired line that its fine to focus on womens issues is a misandrist lie, since female victims of female perpetrators are also ignored, their focus is on male perpetration, not female victims, and even if it were the case, there's plenty of examples where "representation" is deemed sufficient to force changes in organizations and how they present themselves, but its never applied to feminist campaigns, feminist journalists, or feminist organizations.

THAT'S why there is a dichotomy. If it weren't for that, (And it's not just on those two issues, its absolutely systemic within the movement) there wouldn't be the backlash.

"Get on with solving them" likewise means acknowledging mens issues and sidelining feminists and feminist doctrine, since stuff like the pay gap is caused by lack of work-life balance in males, lack of paternity leave etc, which requires confronting misandry in both men and women.

How do you propose mens issues get resolved and these issues get dealt with, if not by the means i'm proposing? Bare in mind, feminists routinely assert they're fixing mens issues too by what they are doing (Because their theory is fucked and just a bunch of sexist assertions like "Male rape victims don't come forward because they are misogynists, so we can fix that issue for men by teaching boys not to hate women. See? We work on mens issues too.").
How do you propose getting them to accept they aren't actually working on mens issues and their theory is wrong?

because that's the crux of the matter here. You're baffled as to why there's a dichotomy. THATS why. Feminist assertions about how sexism works being flat out wrong, and the refusal to countenance alternative approaches. THEY think they ARE working on mens issues as well as womens. So how do you propose we deal with them, if not by purging them from institutions of power?

The UK already has international mens day discussed in parliament, one of the first countries to do so, we can go a step further and be ahead of the curve by getting a minister for men who will focus on mens issues. We're a country with a dwindling feminist minority, and even among those, some feminists aren't a problem for society and don't believe in the actual feminist theory stuff. The support is there in the masses, it's just a matter of getting the institutions to keep up with the times, and a major way to do that is a minister for men.

Ifreann wrote:Menister. Or manister?

The malister for men, working for the man.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england ... protesters

The phrase "citizen’s arrest" led me to think that the protests may have a connection to the Freemen on the Land movement, which is a common law variation on the Sovereign Citizens movement wherein followers believe that the laws of the land don’t apply to them.

Minoa wrote:Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england ... protesters

The phrase "citizen’s arrest" led me to think that the protests may have a connection to the Freemen on the Land movement, which is a common law variation on the Sovereign Citizens movement wherein followers believe that the laws of the land don’t apply to them.

Uh...okay? That's the kind of leap that sets world records in the long jump.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Of course, ultimately Khan will just have to get used to having his speeches interrupted ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Minoa wrote:Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england ... protesters

The phrase "citizen’s arrest" led me to think that the protests may have a connection to the Freemen on the Land movement, which is a common law variation on the Sovereign Citizens movement wherein followers believe that the laws of the land don’t apply to them.

It actually dates back to medieval England, and is enshrined in the police and criminal evidence act 1984. It's actually called "any person arrest", since you don't have to be a citizen to do it. But anyone carrying out a citizens arrest makes themselves liable to lawsuit or prosecution, so it's best to just stay out of it and call the police.

And yes, in this example it's just some idiots. To the tower with them!

Minoa wrote:Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england ... protesters

The phrase "citizen’s arrest" led me to think that the protests may have a connection to the Freemen on the Land movement, which is a common law variation on the Sovereign Citizens movement wherein followers believe that the laws of the land don’t apply to them.

Why was one guy holding up an American flag?

Eibenland wrote:

Minoa wrote:Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england ... protesters

The phrase "citizen’s arrest" led me to think that the protests may have a connection to the Freemen on the Land movement, which is a common law variation on the Sovereign Citizens movement wherein followers believe that the laws of the land don’t apply to them.

Why was one guy holding up an American flag?

No idea.

Bit odd. English people go to perform a citizens arrest on an english mayor for.. reasons, and hold up a US flag.

At least i think they are all english, who knows that dude might have been a yank. Coudlnt fucking hear what they were saying.

Eibenland wrote:

Minoa wrote:Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england ... protesters

The phrase "citizen’s arrest" led me to think that the protests may have a connection to the Freemen on the Land movement, which is a common law variation on the Sovereign Citizens movement wherein followers believe that the laws of the land don’t apply to them.

Why was one guy holding up an American flag?

He's a thick cunt who doesn't even know where he's from?

Ostroeuropa wrote:“The whole idea is nonsense, men don’t have to fight to become equal citizens, they already are. It is women who are having to fight to become equal citizens with men.”

I'm surprised that you didn't pick up on this line, Ostro. First, she claims that men are already equal citizens. Presumably, then, that means that they're equal citizens when compared to women. She then goes on to claim that women are fighting to be equal citizens with men. These two statements are contradictory. You'd think that she was saying that men are already equal with women, but she is actually saying that women are disadvantaged. With whom, exactly, are men equal citizens then? Intersex individuals? Those of non-binary gender?

It makes no sense. If her argument is that men are privileged in society then calling them 'equal citizens' is inaccurate. If she genuinely believes that men and women are equal then saying that 'women are having to fight to become equal citizens' is inaccurate. If these two statements were far apart then I could forgive the oversight, but they come one after the other.

Eibenland wrote:

Minoa wrote:Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england ... protesters

The phrase "citizen’s arrest" led me to think that the protests may have a connection to the Freemen on the Land movement, which is a common law variation on the Sovereign Citizens movement wherein followers believe that the laws of the land don’t apply to them.

Why was one guy holding up an American flag?

Some Brits would be happier if England left the European continent entirely and moved the entire country halfway across the Atlantic. Special relationship, don't you know?

So are the DUP and Sinn Fein actually trying to sort out a deal anymore?

Philjia wrote:So are the DUP and Sinn Fein actually trying to sort out a deal anymore?

At this point NI should just Belgium it out and have no government.

Besides most people forgot NI exists. We had a noshuffle reshuffle and other important stuff.

Philjia wrote:So are the DUP and Sinn Fein actually trying to sort out a deal anymore?

Clearly, the only reasonable solution is to bring NI back under direct rule.

States of Glory wrote:

Philjia wrote:So are the DUP and Sinn Fein actually trying to sort out a deal anymore?

Clearly, the only reasonable solution is to bring NI back under direct rule.

I'm pretty sure it is at the moment.

Fartsniffage wrote:

States of Glory wrote:Clearly, the only reasonable solution is to bring NI back under direct rule.

I'm pretty sure it is at the moment.

We'll make it permanent, then. While we're at it, let's abolish the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament until Brexit is over. The SNP must pay for their agitations.

States of Glory wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
I'm pretty sure it is at the moment.

We'll make it permanent, then. While we're at it, let's abolish the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament until Brexit is over. The SNP must pay for their agitations.

Do you actually live in the UK?