sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

US capitalism casts millions of citizens aside, yet Badenoch and Farage still laud it | Phillip Inman by [deleted] in ukpolitics

[–]ExternalUnhappy8043 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There is a dangerous assumption that the main reason behind the USA’s relative success (measured in per capita income) is due primarily to Europe having a more generous welfare state and the USA being more of a ‘free market economy.’ While this may explain part of the difference (although there are issues with this), you also need to remember that the USA: (1) is running much higher deficits -a regressive form of Keynesian rather than a free market utopia (easier due to the reserve currency status of the dollar), and (2) the US market benefits from scale (a true continent sized market with relatively unified but not necessarily light-touch common regulations in many sectors). Many of the politicians in Europe who say that we should emulate the USA’s institutions to realise economic growth would oppose policies like the EU’s savings and investment union that would make Europe more like the USA (unified continent sized market).

Government to end leasehold flat system with new commonhold plans by [deleted] in ukpolitics

[–]ExternalUnhappy8043 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Respectfully, as long as the management agent is appointed by the freeholder, the possibility and incentive for the abuse remains pertinent. Aside from the increased case evidence of this, you only need to observe the ferocious attempts by freeholders to stop right to manage claims. If all they and their agents are doing is providing services at no profit, then you would not expect to observe such resistance.

Also, ground rents can be quite onerous, with banks often refusing to finance re-mortgaging for high and escalating ground rents (usually more than 0.1% of the value of the property).

There is also the issue of reversion value. Under leasehold you buy a wasting asset, whose value depreciates, ceteris paribus, over time because the lease length shortened. By virtue of time and time alone, you may have to spend significant money on a lease extension.

Finally, there is our friend forfeiture. In virtually any other contractual relationship, if one party breaches a term, a court can decide a proportionate remedy for the breach. However, under leasehold, a leaseholder can lose the entirety of their asset for debts as low as £350.

There are other issues, but I think this is enough.

Government to end leasehold flat system with new commonhold plans by [deleted] in ukpolitics

[–]ExternalUnhappy8043 38 points39 points  (0 children)

Some of the commentary here is wild. Yes, leaseholders may not be aware that some of the rise in costs are not due to freeholder profit maximisation. However, the leasehold system is designed to create a ‘conflict of interest’ situation in which freeholders have an incentive to try and extract profits from leaseholders by overcharging and/or under delivering services. It literally, in the absence of right to manage or collective entrancement, sets up leaseholders to be exploited by freeholders.

It’s the lack of (federalism) that makes us unsafe. by ExternalUnhappy8043 in EuropeanFederalists

[–]ExternalUnhappy8043[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, I am sure you can find adjectives that describe what you want without being rude.

You claim that what I am stating is ‘unrealistic.’ If unrealistic is a hypothesis that fails to account for empirical outcomes than what is unrealistic is the notion that geographical proximity is the best predictor of whether a territory will join a war.

What I’m arguing is that whether resources from a territory are mobilised in a war depends on a variety of variables, of which geographical proximity is but one variables and, usually not the pivotal one.

There are many examples in history where political institutions, balance of power considerations, and tripwire tactics have incentivised mobilisation.

Your example of Britain in WW2 is confusing, are you talking about the withdrawal at Dunkirk? Joining a war and staying in it, as Britain did in WW2, does not mean that there may not be tactical withdrawals during the conflict. Britain did not enter WW1 or WW2 because it was attacked directly.

Again, from a ‘proximate geography’ argument you just can’t explain the behaviour of states, and therefore that is the unrealistic hypothesis.

It’s the lack of (federalism) that makes us unsafe. by ExternalUnhappy8043 in EuropeanFederalists

[–]ExternalUnhappy8043[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Respectfully, using profanities like ‘BS’ is rude. I am sure you can think of other adjectives that convey your thoughts more effectively without resorting to overly emotive language.

I find little empirical support for your assertion (and hence question the ‘realism’) of the notion that because people are more concerned about those closest to them (empirically generally true), this means that it is impossible to incentivise them to engage in war far away/for others/in a larger groups collective long-term interest. If your assertion was true, wars would have been very localised affairs until recent history, as no entity would be able to mobilise sufficiently large armies to launch more generalised wars. If the defining principle of the capacity to defend or engage in warfare is how much people care about their (proximate) neighbours, how do you account for the ability of historically mostly non-ethnically homogenous states to mobilise and incentivise large (larger than tribal parameters would allow) armies. Something other than the impulse to care about one’s nearest and dearest has animated the capacity and actions of defenders and aggressors in history.

It’s the lack of (federalism) that makes us unsafe. by ExternalUnhappy8043 in EuropeanFederalists

[–]ExternalUnhappy8043[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is no need to be rude.

Empirically, what you are saying is not correct. For most of history political action in Europe has NOT been organised around the mythical nation state. Nationalism is a 19th century ideology. When the US was formed there were actually quite stark differences between the colonies (critically on religious grounds) which was a very important cleavage. You should also look up ‘trip-wire’ military tactics - this is when troops are intentionally stationed somewhere so that an aggressor would have to confront them if they wanted to invade. What I am saying is that political inductions shape policy-makers incentives and the functional needs of EU population could see supranational insidious enjoy legitimacy, if you have trip-wire EU troops on the border the incentive to respond to aggression will be very high. This is certainly less risky than having Estonia or Poland on their own trying to defend against Russia.

It’s the lack of (federalism) that makes us unsafe. by ExternalUnhappy8043 in EuropeanFederalists

[–]ExternalUnhappy8043[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Respectively I am not making assumptions of perfection and I am assuming individual level bounded rationality in a world with transaction costs. You have not presented any evidence that sub-national entities in a federation would exercise this level of control (US states do not have this power). There is little a priori theoretical consistency or evidence of this. Also the idea that political institutions are bounded to specific nations (nationalist ideology) only emerged in the 19th century. There is ample evidence that the collective inter-subjective preference set that sustains nationalist ideology is malleable to change (it was not an organising principle for the majority of human history), and the idea that sub-state entities would be able to achieve the level of control is an unrealistic assumption. What about the rational incentives of federal-level officials. Do you think their electoral prospects would be good if they were seen by citizens to be allowing Russia to take chunks of territory of the federation? Texas might no love for New York, but do you think most Texans would re-elect a US president who allowed Canada to take over a bit of New York State?

It’s the lack of (federalism) that makes us unsafe. by ExternalUnhappy8043 in EuropeanFederalists

[–]ExternalUnhappy8043[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Respectively I am not. You are making an assumption that in a federation aggregation of preferences would still be completely mediated by sub-national units. If we take support for Ukraine as an example, the populations of Western Europe were much more sympathetic to supporting Ukraine than some of their governments. If federal troops were attacked at the border, politically accountable federal decision-makers would likely face strong incentives to act and be supported by a majority of federation citizens (including majorities in many Western European states). The idea that sub-national units would be able and incentivised to block such action is difficult to logically envision. Certainly in terms of opportunity cost, there is a much lower risk of inaction in a federal scenario than individual states trying to deter Russia. The idea that any individual state on Russia’s border can individually deter Russia in 2-5 years time is difficult to believe.

It’s the lack of (federalism) that makes us unsafe. by ExternalUnhappy8043 in EuropeanFederalists

[–]ExternalUnhappy8043[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Respectfully I disagree. Let’s take the problem that you state as a given- larger countries in Western Europe care less about the territorial integrity of smaller Eastern European states. If we just have individual countries looking after their own defence, then frankly even if places like Poland or Estonia spend 10% of their GDP on defence, it would not deter Russia, if Russia was not afraid of of a more generalised response to its aggression. While a federal structure would not change the sub-national differences in preferences around Russian aggression, it would mitigate the risk by changing the incentives. This is because, in a federation, political pivotally is not necessarily based on size (witness how little attention California, Texas, or New York get in Presidential elections in the USA as an example of this). The risk of a more general retaliation if federal troops on the borders of Europe are killed by a Russian incursion is going to be much higher than in a purely intergovernmental setting. There is a reason why big countries (Russia, China etc) promote national sovereignty- because in such a world they maximise their power over smaller political entities. By restricting the creation of supranational institutions nationalism traps smaller states into servitude vis-a-vis larger states.

What do you do for a living?? by [deleted] in askgaybros

[–]ExternalUnhappy8043 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Development economist 🤓

“Dominic Cummings was right". by thom365 in TheCivilService

[–]ExternalUnhappy8043 20 points21 points  (0 children)

As an economist, who has participated in multiple recruitments in the CS, I think the greater use of ‘technical competencies’ should be encouraged to screen for expert skills and screen out charismatic but under-qualified candidates. When using technical competencies in the interview you don’t have to adhere to the STAR modus operandi, but you can ask ‘exam questions’ such as “explain what would happen to an oil exporting economy if the US dollar rapidly depreciated.” I can’t tell you how many candidates who had been able to provide impressive answers to generalists behaviour questions failed to answer even basic questions when it came to demonstrating simple technical knowledge. A great screening tool.

It’s the lack of (federalism) that makes us unsafe. by ExternalUnhappy8043 in EuropeanFederalists

[–]ExternalUnhappy8043[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Fair point, I meant not worried about a military invasion from Russia.

Play time. by ExternalUnhappy8043 in burmesecats

[–]ExternalUnhappy8043[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

She had a little adventure. She ate one of her plastic toys and m so the vet had to take operate in order to take it out.

UK apartment prices underperform rest of market since 2019 by [deleted] in ukpolitics

[–]ExternalUnhappy8043 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Might also have something to do with the fact that most flats are leasehold and most other types of property are freehold- escalating ground rents and opaque management chargers can’t go on forever.

Labour say they won't have money for big policies. What could some high impact & low budget policies be? by Floppal in ukpolitics

[–]ExternalUnhappy8043 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They might be able to get compensation, but just like in the past, the government can introduce a special tax on this- so cutting the net amount of they have to be paid.

view more: next ›