Hacker News Reader

Comment by retrogradeorbit | Hacker News Reader

In my opinion this is the inevitable political crisis that unrestrained neoliberalism has lead us to. [ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/31/witnes... ]

I'd say this is the end of the ideology but I'm too much of a realist and I expect the powers that be to now double down on it and then try and profit from it all going up in flames.

(But please don't assume I am some kind of socialist/anti-capitalist. Capitalism operates quite well in a fair and open market with a strong rule of law. But Neoliberalism is not this. Neoliberalism is destroying public institutions and utilities through financial plunder and then selling the organisation whole-sale and off market at bargain basement prices to the corrupt politician's corrupt mate in the private sector who then goes and cuts services, jacks prices, and gouges the captive public with their new found monopoly, then back channels the money through the lobbyists to the political party that enabled it, and calls it progress... and then the people cheer that the institution is 'profitable' again)

[Edit: sorry. this rant is a little off topic...]

View on HN

This coincides with a podcast interview I listened to with a renowned CPA. He said that the existing tax code in the U.S. is set almost entirely to incentivize growth, entrepreneurship, and investment. So, the tax code is full of all kinds of breaks for employers, job creators, investors, owners of assets, etc. The tax rate on most long-term capital gains is significantly less than income tax. Salaried individuals be damned. When Warren Buffett claims, as he has in the past, that he pays a lower tax rate than most of his employees, he's not exaggerating.

This tax strategy aggressively pursued during the Reagan administration, supported during the Clinton administration, and maintained during the Bush and Obama administrations relies on the assumption that growth among the asset-holders translates into more jobs and better pay for everyone ("trickle-down economics"). This assumption seems asinine now because of course the wealthy are going to save whatever profit they make. That's how the wealthy get wealthy in the first place! The Great Recession has only exposed this more. Employers realized "Actually, I didn't need those positions anyway." Other employers realized "There's enough demand for jobs here, so I don't actually have to increase salary that much." Property values may have collapsed during the Great Recession but a lot of long-term property owners realized "People still need a roof over their heads. Demand for rent is at an all-time high. I have no incentive to lower rent."

Consequently, wealth inequality grows. Wages stagnate. Homeownership stagnates. Rent rises with inflation. The percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds living at home with their parents is the highest it's been in nearly a century. The young and educated see the situation, realize that they have no power over an establishment bending to the whims of the upper-class and corporations, and grow more and more apathetic. The old and uneducated are fed populist nonsense and anti-immigration scapegoating, thinking that driving out the brown people will get them the jobs and pay that employers have no interest in giving them. Trust is an emotion. A belief. What makes you less likely to trust others? Insecurity. And why wouldn't people be insecure in this economic environment?

(I realize that this is a very U.S.-centric comment and I apologize to any other nationalities for whom this does not describe the political environment.)

But we do want growth. Would you prefer the opposite – stagnation? How's that working out for Europe? "Trickle-down economics" was never an actual concept. It was a silly characterization of policies that favored keeping corporate taxes low in the name of encouraging capital investment and it's been responsible for the strength of our economy over the past 40 years.

Everyone loves to rail against wealth inequality (talk about populism...) but nobody ever explains why wealth inequality is so bad. So the 1% has a large concentration of the wealth. If we took all their money and distributed it evenly among all citizens it would barely move the needle in terms of living standards. Someone having 1000 times more money than you doesn't really affect you. In fact, that money is likely floating around the economic system anyways in the form of investments.

Asking that the government liberate that money – which in terms of total tax revenue is a rounding error – does not seem like a good policy given how incompetent the government has proven itself to be when spending the money it already collects. I'd rather there be a few fat-cats sitting on yachts doing nothing (which is better than bombing brown people or spying on me) and have a Bill Gates and Elan Musk actually tackling important problems than have no fat-cats at all and a slightly larger government making all the same mistakes they make today with no visionary capitalists to speak of. Call me crazy.

>Asking that the government liberate that money [...] does not seem like a good policy given how incompetent the government has proven itself to be when spending the money it already collects.

So don't ask the government to liberate the existing holdings of the 1%, ask them to change policy to cutoff the supply.

The tax code is so overwhelmingly in favour of the investing class that, if it were re-balanced, you wouldn't have to take anyone's money to achieve a similar outcome in a decade.

> The tax code is so overwhelmingly in favour of the investing class that, if it were re-balanced, you wouldn't have to take anyone's money to achieve a similar outcome in a decade.

Except this 1% are exactly the sort that have the resources to just leave Canada if it ceases to be financially favourable. It's unfortunately not so cut and dry.

They're a lot more willing to threaten to do this, and also invite politicians to fancy dining / holiday homes / helicopter rides, then they have historically proven to be willing to actually do this.

Overwhelmingly in favor of the investing class? How on earth are you reaching that conclusion? The bottom 45% pay no federal income tax whatsoever. In fact, the top 1% pay 25% of all taxes in the US. I wouldn't call that "overwhelmingly in favor. You can certainly argue that they should be taxed more but let's not pretend they're not already footing a disproportionate portion of our tax obligations.

The conclusion is reached by distinguishing between earned and unearned income. Unearned income is essentially investment income, and there is no FICA tax on that income, and it's taxed based on your earned income tax bracket, which could end up making it 0% and thus not taxed at all if you have no earned income. https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/investing/2015-capital-gains...

Further, while it is true that "federal income tax" does not include FICA, FICA is a tax on income and the poorest sod pays FICA tax from the very first dollar of income. So it's kinda misleading to say the bottom 45% won't pay any income (related) tax whatsoever.

You can have a case where those 45% are paying 7.65% of their pittance of income on FICA, with no additional income related tax, where someone wealthy enough who has no earned income is paying 0% federal income tax or capital gains tax or FICA on their unearned investment income. And that's just a small example.

It's unearned income. In other words: no income. They will get taxes the full 15% rate when they sell the asset so what does it matter if it's 0% in the year they don't sell it other than to sell a narrative? I'm sorry if somebody's assets appreciate over time but to call that income is just dishonest.

I hate how people constantly move the goalposts when it come to claiming that a certain minority of people aren't "paying their fair share". You know who else doesn't pay taxes on unearned income? The 99%. That's about as fair as it can get.

FICA goes to benefits that overwhelmingly favor the poor compared to the rich, so I don't find that argument compelling either.

Your original claim was that the tax code heavily favored the 1% but so far all you've managed to back that up with is a tax rate on their unearned income being the exact same as it is for the 99%'s unearned income. Hardly convincing.

>It's unearned income. In other words: no income. No that's wrong, it is income. Examples of unearned income are dividends and interest, and capital gains. These are taxed at a lower income tax rate than earned income, i.e. income from a salaried job. And unearned income is not subject to FICA tax.

You have to make enough money for starters in order to have income sources that are unearned, so yes this is favored at people who make money. The very wealthy, the 1%, aren't making this money from earned income, they make it from unearned income.

> Someone having 1000 times more money than you doesn't really affect you.

This is observably not true. Prices increase for everyone when average incomes (demand) go up. So if people around me suddenly start making more and I don't, suddenly, I'm paying more for things, and am worse off. If you want a concrete example look at Bay Area housing prices.

Yet a rich person can only occupy one house at a time. Maybe they could own a couple different houses in different locations but even then they have to pay people to maintain them throughout the year. I don't think the 1% are having any effect on your rent bills in SF. The 10%, maybe, and outside investors from China, and a broken local government for sure.. but not the 1%.

And besides, you're not addressing my point. You're trying to explain supply and demand for some reason and ignoring the fact that I said "1000 times more money" which means the ultra rich, which is the group that progressives like to scapegoat.

Explain to me how anyone from the 1% "observably" negatively affects your daily life in significant way.

I am skeptical about the roofs over people's head argument. This is being used by buyers to rationalize mind boggling home values in Toronto and Vancouver. If the jobs keep being crappy, young people will just move away to better economic environments. Canada is constantly losing a lot of its top talent to the US because of this.

I think the true cause of the unaffordable housing is the insanely low interest rates. The people at the helm are attempting growth at all costs.

Edit: it is really interesting to contrast Toronto with SF. Both are really nice places to live without cost of living concerns. Both have insane home prices. Rents are relatively cheap in Toronto because of basic demand and supply. SF has great paying jobs, Toronto does not. Will be interesting to see how things pan out over the next decade in both cities.

Lack of construction is certainly a problem in Toronto, which has a default 10 meter height limit for new residential construction. All new buildings taller than a house require municipal buy-in.

Between 2001 and 2011, the number dwellings in Toronto increased 11%, while areas 30km from the downtown core grew about 35%. You can clearly see the effects of the 10m restriction on urban sprawl at p. 11 of the city's census backgrounder:

http://www1.toronto.ca/city_of_toronto/social_development_fi...

Detached homes and town-homes use twice as much energy as apartments, and people commuting 30km to the city generally drive. There has been an uptick in apartment construction recently, but these units are generally too small for families because developers find it more profitable to sell mini-suites to young bachelors.

Limiting high rise sounds like a good thing. Especially in places reasonably far from the equator. It's nice being able to get sunlight at the street level!

I don't think very tall buildings are the answer. More and better communal services and smaller more efficient properties. I think that would go a fair way.

This is NIMBYism at its finest. Those who immigrated to Toronto first own prime real estate near commercial centres. New working families have to move out and commute long distances so that retired folk living in Toronto houses can enjoy their land appreciation and sunshine.

It happens everywhere it seems, even in small resort towns, their success does not apply to everyone. If you have money, you can buy in. If you don't, you live in the next town, and pay for your own bus to get to work.

Back in the day, America, and even in Britain, housed their servant class.

Today, sure the servant class is "free" to the degree they're not literally called servants, but I think we're doing things worse when it comes to housing. This servant class is priced out of the employer's neighborhood market to be sure, but often all surrounding neighborhoods, and increasingly even the town, that their employer resides in. They're effectively exported at the end of their service day, and imported when needed again the next. I think it's disgusting.

There are ways to make it better. For example, when driving through Manhattan, you feel like you're in a canyon. In downtown Chicago, you don't get that same feeling because they have rules that buildings have to be so many feet from the street, and after a certain height must be set in even more. It's a real noticeable difference from cities that don't have such regulations, and it really makes the city feel much more sunny, friendly, and alive. I often felt like a troll walking through Manhattan.

Rich people have lower savings rates than the middle class.

You think billionaires just buy treasuries or CDs and wait for their wealth to evaporate through inflation? That money is invested, including into the VC funds that make the SV startup lifestyle possible.

Investments are savings; just riskier.

(Did you think that your savings account at the bank is just held as treasuries? The bank invests it.)

>Did you think that your savings account at the bank is just held as treasuries? The bank invests it.

It's actually a bit more complicated than that:

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarte...

> make the SV startup lifestyle possible.

You say that as though it's a good thing

Well they quite literally 'created' my job and many others' so I'm pretty happy with it.

The parent is not talking about "savings" in the sense of savings accounts, but in terms of the macroeconomic sense of the word where savings denotes anything you do with money that is not immediate consumption (and therefore savings=investments).

During the Great Depression, every newspaper called it a "Recession". it wasn't called a Depression until it was over.

Seems history is repeating itself, judging from the wording of your post.

If I were to make a broad connection between the lack of trust in government, I would attribute it to the aging of the democratic institution. In the last 15 years, scandals around voting have been huge in many elections, and the advance of technology is making how the politicians run look antiquated and unrepresentative.

I think this is more of a general response against governments who don't have the capacity to fullfill their promises,which is something that the spread of technology has made more evident.

'Neoliberalism' or libertarianism has definitely put the state under the scope and has made the bar higher: governments around the world failing to address the issue of income/wealth inequality is a case for a smaller state, not a bigger one.

Being from Argentina, believe me I understand how Neoliberalism was used as an excuse for politicians to profit from selling state assets, but then how the solution to a corrupt institution be give that institution more power? Much like the 2008 crises which was pinned on lack of regulation of banks: almost 10 years passed and no banker went to jail, and the rules are the same. Milton friedman would have said to let the banks fail, but the governments didn't, and that expectation is one of the causes cited for banks taking such large risks.

I have hopes for a future decentralized government, one where few dont hold the power of the many, and decisions are done more organically and interests can be better represented. The advent of technology is making that easier to achieve year by year.

> Milton friedman would have said to let the banks fail, but the governments didn't, and that expectation is one of the causes cited for banks taking such large risks.

This can't be repeated enough. The banks should have bit the dust. A great many pensioners and households would have suffered, but then the government could have introduced emergency bankruptcy laws and ameliorated the worst of it. The crash would have provided its own antidote.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/bankruptcy-...

In my country every person I ever talked to was against the bank bailouts. Democracy didn't happen here and neither did capitalism. That's the inconvenient reality for the left and right. Their old enemies aren't to blame. What we have is a failure of governance, not ideology.

The European Union officials were right behind the government in this. We actually have phone recordings of corrupt bankers describing manipulating idiot government officials.

http://www.thejournal.ie/the-anglo-tapes-9-jaw-dropping-quot...

Then later the EU forced the debt down our throats. With friends like this...

I'd like to know what the leftist solution is to that. We can't replace unelected officials. Because they seem to just go back to their hobby horse of blaming the capitalism ideology for this.

One capitalist solution would be to get rid of central bank controlled interest rates. The governance problem remains unsolved though and all this could basically happen again.

> A great many pensioners and households would have suffered, but then the government could have introduced emergency bankruptcy laws and ameliorated the worst of it.

Exactly, bail out the people, not the corrupt institutions.

I'd prefer power in the hands of the few. The selection of the few needs fine tuning and fixing though.

The cumulative intelligence and decision making capability of the herd is great at wasting everyone's time and the worlds resources. Thanks to visionary lizard person Mark Zuckerberg, we are all connected now whether we like it or not. And the stampeding brainless herd is going to be dragging each one of us in directions we have no control over.

As long as China doesn't implode, they have an opportunity here to show the world a way out. If they do implode we have to just wait around for a better, more effective centralized system to evolve.

Its impossible for a few to represent the interest of many. So the simpler the choice, the less representative it is. It should be more important to give power to the person running your city than your country, because his policies are way more likely to make an impact in your daily life. Making a oversimplifying comparison, centralization is usually against the robustness and efficiency of a system, since it adds a central point of failure. In practice, for me, it add so many layers of abstraction that the ones at the top make decisions on things very different than what the ones at the bottom care about.

Centralization was practical before, but now with technology we have an increased capacity of descentralization.

It isn't just sale of public institutions. In many cases, it is attempts to maintain the status quo when circumstances have clearly changed. Public sector pensions are a perfect example of this. I think most software engineers don't realize how good public servants have it. In a time of very little safe asset growth, defined benefit pension plans are simply unsustainable without massive increases in contributions. Yet everywhere it seems that contributions are not going up and the people are employing various tricks to keep things going. In a fair market, the new reality would be accepted and pension plans would change. But here we are.

Btw ... in the book Fate of the State, the author suggests states to privatize their assets to meet their funding shortfalls. So the neoliberals will truly profit while things get worse. Sad.

It'll be interasting what's going to happen with state pensions when the burden is just too high. In the next 15 years one of these IL, NJ or HI will be at a breaking point. My bet is on IL since the approx date of falling off the cliff is 2028.

According to the book (the author did do some financial analysis but I forget the details), if these states sell a small fraction of their assets, they will be able to pay off all their debt. I'm definitely not agreeing with the author's point of view, but that is something I had not thought about before. i.e. while your debt may be a lot higher than your income, if you have sizable assets, you an get away with it for a while.

>I think most software engineers don't realize how good public servants have it.

Maybe we should work towards all having it as good as the public servants do.

I'm not trying to foment, but I see this meme all the time: if some other sector of society has it better, then they must be brought down to our level because 'austerity' or something.

Meanwhile I don't see CEO pay being lowered due to austerity or banks making any less profit...

You are correct in principal ... we should all have it better. However, now that I'm a bit older, I ask questions about productivity and such. If we are earning more than we are actually producing, someone is paying the bills. It is either someone else (which is not fair), or coming from the pockets of our children (incredibly not fair). I think the previous generation screwed us badly. It is our responsibility to not pass it on. But you are definitely right about issues like CEO pay being unfair and beyond any true productivity.

I see that too. What seems to be happening is that old public sector union employees are given comparable wages to what they got before the crunch.

Then the younger generation of police officers and nurses are receiving almost nothing. They are literally on min wage. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be a police for nine euros an hour.

Your rant isn't off-topic: Oftentimes the distrust for govt is reworded by socialist persons as "Remove those highly paid CEOs". But sometimes the distrust isn't against corporates. I the English case, a good part of the distrust is that elites are bringing foreigners that compete with the masses without a public debate on immigration quantity. Meanwhile liberals censor the debate by tagging those who speak up as fascists.

A hard-core split was bound to happen as long as liberals/socialists didn't want to hear about immigration quantity. And it may happen again in France, as long as lefties don't discuss about problems we have.

> lefties

Ah, one of those comments.

Most of the EU countries where immigration is currently an issue have had 'right wing' parties leading them for a very long time.

Immigration is just the easiest populist button to press to get a large number of people to vote against their own interests.

One of the problems underlying all this is not immigration per-se, but the rapid and unbounded expansion of the EU to include countries with a huge range of incomes and costs-of-life. Add to that the ability and willingness of people to leave behind their old lives and/or families in order to go abroad to make some money and you have an instantaneous problem.

But the powers that be have it right: in the longer term the only way the EU can work is by giving everybody the right to relocate to wherever they want. That way at some point it all levels out again.

Try to imagine a USA where someone from Texas would not be able to move to LA or NYC or the other way around. Border controls against movement on every state-border. If you find that hard to imagine try to come up with a really good argument why it should be any different within the EU.

Finally, there are people that wish to migrate to the EU from regions outside of it. The EU made a strategic mistake here, which is that they have been partially (together with the US) responsible for the destabilization of the region just outside of it. That this could lead to a huge influx of refugees was a risk they took knowingly, and that I feel it is only responsible to deal with. It would be nice if the countries that are not walking distance from those regions or that are protected by a body of water that is not easily navigable would take their responsibilities in this as well.

Another mistake regarding extraEU immigration is that they put all the responsibility on the Schengen border countries instead of creating a common solution for that.

> a common solution

I'm sorry for my naivety but what does that mean? I've heard this so many times. Do they want German troops on their borders? Do they want to sit back and relax while Germany feeds, clothes, and shelters their troops and law enforcement?

Now, a common solution for the refugee crisis is not possible because the problem is not the refugee crisis. The problem is that the EU is TOO WEAK.

Perhaps a naive first step towards a solution could be that all member states cede the right to tax income to the European Union. We could follow up in a few years by ceding VAT to the EU as well. Follow the money. Member states shouldn't "contribute" towards funding the EU. The EU should have the right to collect taxes.

I'm sure there are a lot of subtleties involved here but this is what I see from outside. I'd appreciate any insight as to why the naive approach is valid or invalid.

The EU should have the right to collect taxes.

I'm sure there are a lot of subtleties involved here but this is what I see from outside. I'd appreciate any insight as to why the naive approach is valid or invalid.

a) Would require a constitutional change in many EU states, especially Germany where some of the changes to the financial ESM were challenged: http://europeanlawblog.eu/?p=1057

b) Collecting taxes implies full budgetary control over EU states. This leads to ...

c) It would be very, very unpopular, especially in the current environment. It was bad enough when Greece effectively had to hand a budget veto to its creditors. Trying to make taxation EU-wide is basically a red flag to populist Eurosceptic movements everywhere.

Remember, the US only regards Federal sovereignty as superior to State sovereignty as a result of a brutal civil war the outcome of which is still not fully accepted. In the EU the member states are still sovereign.

At the very least, have a vetting + tracking implemention at the outer borders. As far as I can tell they had and did nothing. They had no plan, no structures in place, no way to track migrants entering Europe, nothing. That is just asking for chaos, trouble, and pissed off groups of local people.

Basically, all I see is a blanket "let's open the borders" call, that allowed people to simply cross a border. It renders the concept of borders, border-control, visas, regulations, passports all of that as null and void. For years, we've all followed the rule of law, visas and passports for travel, and now all of a sudden none of that matters because...?

The EU had a common border agency system for many years, had a way to track migrants, and had structures for this.

Yet they failed in late 2014, because Greece couldn't continue funding the Greek part of them anymore, and refused funding from Germany for them (because Germany said they'd only fund Greek border guard if they'd be replaced with FRONTEX officers).

That finally happened in late 2015.

You mean, something like a EUROPEAN BORDER AND COAST GUARD?

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/sec...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Border_and_Coast_Guar...

Or, its predecessor, FRONTEX?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontex

You are saying immigration is not preventable. The other camp says it is. They vote against EU - and now they've demonstrated that immigration can be limited, so the first camp was wrong. So which camp was right and which was stubborn?

In the meantime, the cost was huge for all parties, so all the pro-immigration camp has succeeded is to increase the cost of stopping immigration.

And it's not even about intra-EU migration. It's probably about the number of international visas granted.

I didn't even have an opinion on the Brexit. All I notice is there is little tolerance or understanding for the Leave camp.

You are saying immigration is not preventable

No, he isn't.

He isn't saying immigration is not preventable, but he's saying:

> In the longer term the only way the EU can work is by giving everybody the right to relocate to wherever they want

and about non-EU immigration:

> I feel it is only responsible [...] to deal with the large influx [associated with] the destabilization of the region just outside it.

The trouble with putting all "immigration" into a single category is that it conflates so many different things.

International visas are currently not harmonised. The UK is and has been free to run a regime that is as liberal or as hostile as it wants. Non-EU migration is not the fault of the EU.

Intra-EU migration is tied (politically) to the single market. The EU is currently making this clear to Switzerland. The cost of stopping intra-EU migration is leaving the single market, which is potentially a huge cost.

And then there's the real problem: a lot of people who the public considers to be "immigrants" are actually local nationals with nonwhite skin. All of the Bataclan killers were French nationals! There's no immigration policy that could have made a difference here without also having a time machine.

Once you realise that people complaining about "immigrants" also mean "non-white local nationals", suddenly there's no solution. Then you realise that people promising a solution are at the top of the slippery slope leading to the Final Solution, the very thing the EU was set up to prevent ever happening again.

And that's why MP Jo Cox was murdered a few days before the vote.

Your last paragraph is a Godwin point. The first thing that would avoid a war between EU and UK would be tolerance for their point of view with a discussion about immigration without everyone throwing arms in the air and saying "they're all fascists" (which I have heard this week with a lot of anti-british hate).

Yes, immigrants who have been accepted are all UK nationals and they belong there now. Now have we asked the country side UK people whether they want to distribute more visas in 2017 to non-EU, highly skilled, foreign workers, followed by a passport in 10 years? I'm being specific here because liberals tend to conflate xenomurderers with people who want a honest discussion about visa quantities.

Same thing in France. We are still allocating tens of thousands of visas to non-skilled non-refugee immigrants: "Family" visas - aka get your brother in, and all your family can immigrate. We also have the free hospital policy and we've made mistakes with massively accepting people for medical tourism. I have nothing against existing French nationals and I have been the first one to protest aside them against police/administration racism. But we haven't succeeded the battle of the ideas and, as you mention, we have created terrorists out of native French citizen who were exposed to racism. Whether it's the school which isn't free enough, or there university which isn't free enough, or the taxes for the poor which aren't low enough, or specific language/culture classes which don't transmit or values, there is a failure in our integration process. And until we guarantee that we integrate newcomers with our values, I want to postpone non-mandatory immigration as long as there's not enough budget for their teachers.

One of our values is that you, as a French person of 2nd generation, teach your kids to not burn the flag of the country you're in. Another is that we've fought for a century so our women are free, so there will be no sign of submission in women (and the church needs to align too). Another one is, if you're in, don't swap your PhD for smuggling 10k€ of illegal goods after 3 years (which I've seen). Another one is that school is free, so your son better work hard before you complain about racism.

Oh and before you complain more about racism, if I invite you home for programming lessons, don't touch my 8-year old niece (which I've seen). The guy didn't even go to jail, he was merely told off in a police interview with his parents (he's 16). I didn't want to say there's an anti-white movement, but when that happened, in 2015 and together with the two Paris attacks, I started wondering. And it's time we reset equal rules for everyone.

So there is a political question to answer, in every country, about how many visas we issue in each category, how we proceed to integrate everyone, and still make it fair for countryside people. And as long as the liberal answer is "Welcome everyone, all criticizers are racists!", then the answer will be... racism.

> Yes, immigrants who have been accepted are all UK nationals and they belong there now.

No, being an intra-EU migrant under EU free movement does not automatically make you a UK national. You retain your original nationality unless and until you go through the naturalisation process, which few have bothered with because it costs >£1500 and until now does not convey much benefit.

This is why people are worried about the Conservative party leadership candidates refusing to rule out expelling EU nationals - millions of people, some of whom have been here for years, are potentially affected.

> Now have we asked the country side UK people whether they want to distribute more visas in 2017 to non-EU highly skilled foreign workers, followed by a passport 10 years later?

No we haven't, but that's nothing to do with the EU? Generally the pressure has been to reduce "immigration", so the non-EU visa rules have been made more onerous, especially spousal visas.

> No, being an intra-EU migrant under EU free movement does not automatically make you a UK national

Good, because I wasn't talking about those, slight misunderstanding. "Immigrant who have been accepted" = visa holder who is now a citizen = for example a ultra-highly-skilled newly-UK-national born in India.

> but that's nothing to do with the EU?

Absolutely nothing, and that's the problem: The English haven't been asked whether they wanted to increase visas, but their intelligencia did it anyway. So next time they had an opportunity to vote, be sure they voted against whatever the intelligencia wants, whatever it cost. Brexit was a vote against both their governing class and against their upper economic class (London). Yes, the cost is huge, but what other choice were they given?

> misunderstanding

That's why I said putting all "immigration" into a single category is that it conflates so many different things. The Brexit vote can only affect EU free movement immigration.

> So next time they had an opportunity to vote

Next time? What time period do you think this covers? People have been complaining about immigration since the Empire Windrush in 1948. The 'rivers of blood' speech was in 1968. This conversation about immigration has been happening my entire lifetime.

There's a handy graph widget here: http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/dvc123/i... which any reasonable eyeballing suggests that immigration has been in the hundred-thousands for about two decades across three Labour governments and two Conservative ones.

> That's why I said putting all "immigration" into a single category

I was exxxxtremely specific in my last post about one very detailed type of immigration, and you are conflating "all types of immigration" AGAIN. You did systematically misunderstand and conflate everything that was misunderstandable in my speech, I don't know whether that's on purpose or not. That English people have been accepting or refusing immigration in the past is no question. The question is whether they want to add 1 million people in London in the next 10 years (it was the London plan before Brexit), and the English people didn't get to vote on that.

But you, and all the Remain camp together with you, make a full, complete denial that it is possible to discuss immigration quantities, although the visa bureaus exist in every country. And it's to break stubborn people like you that the People of England was required to break your toys, England, and Europe at the same time. Thank you for your stubbornness, here is the bill, please don't do the same in France and accept to discuss immigration quantities.

I agree with most of your comment except with this comparison:

> Try to imagine a USA where someone from Texas would not be able to move to LA or NYC or the other way around. Border controls against movement on every state-border.

> If you find that hard to imagine try to come up with a really good argument why it should be any different within the EU.

Before the recent migratory crisis free movement of people was not really a very hard pressing issue, even after the inclusion of the former eastern bloc countries.

It only took the currently seen proportion when, as response to the migratory pressure and the reticence of neighboring countries, Germany (unilaterally) signaled that they would accept and welcome the migrants without a clear vetting or logistic process in place.

A more apt analogy would be if NAFTA, originally an economic treaty, evolved into a free movement treaty between the participant countries and then, as the result of some kind of adverse conditions in South America, Canada declared that they were willing to accept the South America migrants that managed to reach their country.

There would be a big migratory pressure on the southern Mexican border (the actual border of that union) and unable to control or unwilling to deal with the problem on its own Mexico started to organize the flow of migrants from its southern border to its northern, passing the problem along to the next country, the United States.

In that hypothetical scenario the parties opposed to the original conversion of NAFTA from an economic treaty to a freedom of movement treaty would be bolstered by this unforeseen and unrelated event.

Two notes:

1) nowhere in this analogy I'm making any statement of opinion or passing any judgement about rhe situation depicted

2) comparing NAFTA to the EU is more apt than comparing US to the EU because the states that make the later have a much stronger and older sense of their own national identity than those of the former.

I'm not well-versed in EU politics but I find some parts of what you say surprising. After Brexit, there were reports of racist signs some idiots had put up. These weren't against syrian refugees, but rather against a particular former eastern bloc country.

There is undoubtedly an uptick of xenophobic reactions by some groups in England, even against Portuguese studying and working there (friends of mine even). There is and there will always be a segment of the population that will behave like that, blaming their problems on the "others".

But I don't believe it would ever reach the current proportions in all of the EU without the current migrant crisis and the lack of proper coordinated response.

There never was and never will be coherence in regards to this. Think of copycat crimes as a similar phenomena. Its basically a venting of poorly defined anger and frustration against anything "different".

"One of the problems underlying all this is not immigration per-se, but the rapid and unbounded expansion of the EU to include countries with a huge range of incomes and costs-of-life."

The theory is that by including these countries in the Union their conditions eventually will improve (through EU funding and access to the single market) to a point that people won't have any reason to emigrate, basically removing the root cause of immigration.

It makes a lot of sense, but it is in the best of case a long and difficult process, and people facing loss of jobs and diminishing wealth will see solutions like "let's build a wall", or "let's get out of the EU" as appealing, it's human nature.

Maybe instead of going "all in, all the way" with the single market and free movement (that personally I have thoroughly enjoyed and consider it a huge net positive), the EU should have made the process more gradual.

> the EU should have made the process more gradual.

They did. "Eu Transitional" is a google-able phrase for more info. The UK originally overrode those limits as they needed workers badly at the time, the situation reversed with later countries where the UK maintained the limits and other countries abandoned them:

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=466&

a huge influx of refugees was a risk they took knowingly, and that I feel it is only responsible to deal with.

Yes and since you mention responsibilities for destabilization, I would find it appropriate if the US felt some of it too. How many Syrian refugees have they accepted so far? 10k? It's pathetic, given that Europe is absorbing 100x or 200x the amount.

I'd suggest that the Nobel-peace-prize-winning US president should actually take some simple measures to help peace and accept more refugees into his country instead of shutting the borders.

Maybe Europe should close the floodgates themselves, rather than bitch about we who have been struck by the lightning bolt of sense.

"Floodgates" isn't really the appropriate terminology when you're talking about refugees escaping a war zone for their lives.

It is when I have people from Malawi and Nigeria wandering around outside my house.

Literally right now. People from Malawi are wandering around outside my house. All illegals of course. I have no idea why the police don't deport them but it must be a political decision by higher-ups. The ones I asked don't even lie about where they are from. They are very confident they won't be deported and I am curious about why that should be.

MENA countries have been troubled for many decades, often centuries. We can't take everybody merely because they are suffering. That would be like importing everybody from Boliva and Brazil because they have a lower standard of living than the USA. That is an extreme political stance to take.

You have the power to decide what goes on in your neighborhood. Organize with like minded neighbors and take control of the situation. The police will not always be there and they don't necessarily have your best interests at heart. It's your neighborhood, it's your family, it's your country, do not lie down and let an invader take from you. Your father and grandfather fought to make their part of the world so don't give it away. I am sure this will be down voted by those who would rather give up than fight for themselves but there will always be weak people.

It wouldn't be appropriate if every immigrant were a refugee. But, categorically, this is false:

“The number one reason why people leave Syria is not the bombs or the food or the cold, it’s because they want to find educational opportunities for their children,” Mr. Møller explains. “Every refugee is a migrant. Not every migrant is a refugee.” [ http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/05/15/un-director-admit... ]

"Six out of 10 migrants to Europe come for 'economic reasons' and are not refugees" - EU Vice President Frans Timmermans [ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/six-out-of-10... ]

"The diversity of asylum applications shows the migrant crisis is driven by more than just Syria’s collapse.... Only 21 per cent were from Syria." [ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/11877088/N... ]

The vast majority of immigrants are simply looking to take advantage of European Union countries' superior infrastructure and aid/benefit programs.

"Vote against their own interests" is one of those terms that I can't stand hearing, because it assumes whoever says it knows what's best for everyone else.

But look at eg Cornwall, who voted to leave and then realised it would mean losing a bunch of EU funding.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-cornwa...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/26/cornwall-fea...

Or maybe, they want out of the EU, but retain the level of funding they get (which should result in lower costs for the UK government, which was a net payer to the EU)?!

The UK is only a net payer if you discount the benefits of being in the largest free trade area in the world.

What's the magic formula they came up with where every single member is receiving precisely the same cost/benefits, and no one is getting even the slightest free ride?

Free trade isn't a zero-sum game.

Indeed it isn't, but it's also no guarantee of success, especially not to a level that magically matches some arbitrary corresponding cost.

But Leave promised all of that money to the NHS. Were they lying when they did so?

http://imgur.com/indvx6a

The EU funding in Cornwall was largely wasted. It has been studied by auditors.

Most funding from most sources is largely wasted. That doesn't mean that the money won't be sorely missed.

OK, maybe they know better and that's a fair point. Except that the reason they voted was wrapped into propaganda level of lies and misrepresentations. The campaign on both side was so thin on facts and so big on lies that neither side really knew what they voted for.

Historically, the people that are in power now are the same guys with the same ideas and the same interests than the one that have been screwing them in the last 30 years. The vote is just giving them an immediate boost in power.

So they were mislead to follow the guy that has a consistent history of fucking them up. Maybe that's not technically directly voting against their own interests, but that does not look like the best decision one can take either.

edit: Note that you could probably say the same for the city workers. The UK has a consistent history of boosting its power. People working in the City, long term, are probably better off with neoliberal politic: they are on the winning side of the balance.

Your argument sounds clever but stands in direct contradiction with the data in the article.

You argue that voters were misled and made a huge mistake because they didn't know what they were voting for, due to lies and misinformation, and thus voted against their own interests (not "technically" but in spirit). This is a summary of your argument.

But the article cites polls showing that Leave voters were far more skeptical of politicians and far less likely to believe them than Remain voters: 81% distrust for Leave vs 67% for Remain.

So given that you say both campaigns lied a lot, that would imply that Leave voters were less misled by propaganda and MORE likely to know what it was they were doing. Yet that does not appear to be the conclusion you have reached. Why not?

> So given that you say both campaigns lied a lot, that would imply that Leave voters were less misled by propaganda and MORE likely to know what it was they were doing.

Believing that politician are lying to you does not make you informed, it makes you uninformed. For example, if you believe your GPS is not working, and you chose to follow its direction (or not), it does not mean you know the road, you are still picking at random. I conceded that it is the case of both sides.

As I explained, the reason I believe the Leave voters voted against their best interest is not based on the Brexit campaign, it is based on who they put in charge by doing it.

> Yet that does not appear to be the conclusion you have reached. Why not?

Don't get me wrong, as I alluded before, I'm in a position to actually benefit from the Brexit. I believe that the Leave voters are going to get the shit end of the deal.

I can believe they are informed as you suggest, or I can believe they were mislead. The difference is that I may vote against my interest for the later (eg: increase my taxes), but not for the former.

As final note: better NHS, better social security, more money, more job opportunities, vibrant country side full of activity, ... The fact that I don't believe it will happen does not mean I don't want it to happen. I don't mind being proven wrong, even if that means being ridiculed every 23rd of June, or looking stupid when my kid ask me why I was Remain.

>Ah, one of those comments.

Please don't be condescending and derisive in your argument if you politically disagree with them. I'm sick of seeing that, and it's almost always not productive in an ethical way.

Everyone has the right to be heard and share their opinion. If you are right, then you can win your argument on its merits, not on how you frame your opponent.

The other comment was condescending and name-calling - this one was just pointing that out.

So don't diminish your own argument by dropping to their level.

What is the condescending insult you're referring to by the way? Lefties?

I would say yes, given that it's such a simplistic framing of the situation - the impression given (whether intended or not) is ah, those liberals and socialists with their multicultural dreams! When will they wake up and see that it doesn't work! The response was fine

And the original post that referred to "neoliberalism" as the root of all our problems isn't being just as simplistic in their reasoning?

Neoliberalism is a phenomenon with quite well defined characteristics, so no.

'Lefties' used to dismiss another's point of view as invalid withiut actually explaining why is just baselessly tribal and antagonistic.

Oh, no doubt about that, it's distinctly unhelpful in any political conversation (unless the aim is to deliberately trying wind up the other person in the conversation)

Well, for the very reasons discussed here, that's debatable due mainly to it being turned into a snarl word, mainly by those on the left-hand side.

But yeah, definitely so re your second point, it is needlessly antagonising, and destroys measured political discussion (as it always has and always will)

> Try to imagine a USA where someone from Texas would not be able to move to LA or NYC or the other way around. Border controls against movement on every state-border. If you find that hard to imagine try to come up with a really good argument why it should be any different within the EU.

What makes you compare the EU to the US, and not say, the Americas?

> The EU made a strategic mistake here, which is that they have been partially (together with the US) responsible for the destabilization of the region just outside of it. That this could lead to a huge influx of refugees was a risk they took knowingly, and that I feel it is only responsible to deal with.

I'm going to put this as bluntly as possible so there is no chance of a miscommunication.

Europeans don't want blacks and arabs in their countries. Nobody cares about being called a racist anymore. They want the blacks and arabs out.

In England and France there is a real threat of civil unrest if it continues. People have had it with their children being bullied in schools and the constant stories, real and unreal, of rapes and murders.

You have to ask yourself what a typical young European thinks of Anders Brevik. The ones I know think he was right on the money. As you probably know he wrote a manifesto which is a sort of prognosis/prediction rant. Since he disseminated that and killed the children on the island he has become very popular on the radical European right, a sort of terrorist version of Nostradamus.

To spell it out: it means they won't primarily be attacking blacks and arabs, they'll be attacking leftists open borders supporters and their fellow travelers. They don't hate the blacks and arabs per se, not in comparison to the contempt they have for the portion of the left which they see as traitorous and treasonous.

Attacking people for being different is a side effect in comparison to the urge to destroy your real competitors, people like you but competing for the same resources.

I'm quite certain you'll find a lot of Europeans sharing those sentiments, but if you think you speak for overwhelming majority of of them, you are mistaken.

I used to be an open border supporter but then I changed my mind. The same thing is going to happen to a lot more people in the future. I'm liberal in comparison to most people I know. I feel like neither fish nor fowl because I can see the liberal and conservative positions, a bit like flipping back and forth between seeing a blue dress and a gold dress.

I respect David Cameron for allowing the referendum to go ahead and I respect the Austrians for allowing a recount of their votes after potential fraud was spotted.

Despite that I don't think good stewardship can prevent violence breaking out. Between social media and Islamic terror attacks there will be a reaction, probably starting in France.

Don't presume to speak for me.

> You have to ask yourself what a typical young European thinks of Anders Brevik. The ones I know think he was right on the money. As you probably know he wrote a manifesto which is a sort of prognosis/prediction rant. Since he disseminated that and killed the children on the island he has become very popular on the radical European right, a sort of terrorist version of Nostradamus.

> the contempt they have for the portion of the left which they see as traitorous and treasonous.

And the profound ignorance you have here of history would be funny if it wasn't so pathetically sad.

I'd recommend picking up a history book and educate yourself on what happens when far-right exremists start picking out groups of people among their own countrymen to label as 'enemies' or 'traitors'. It's a diversionary tactic meant advance an agenda of those seeking power that is almost certainly not in your interest or mine.

It was a tactic of the Nazis, of Stalin's Soviets, of the Khmer Rouge. Get a fucking grip.

I'm aware history is repeating itself ionised.

The question I want the answer to is why is the left pushing all the buttons that will produce conflict. This is not a rhetorical question, it is both a statement of fact and a real question.

Let us not pretend inviting millions of foreigners to Europe is some kind of ancient policy of the left wing. This is one of the largest mass migrations in our history. This is a new thing. The response of the right is often reactionary. Classically their forms of terror are also reactionary. Which brings me to the question:

So why is this happening?

I understand very well why people from other countries wish to improve their circumstances, nothing could be more human. Like I already said, the main vitriol of the right is against their countrymen of the left persuasion, not the refugees/migrants. This is something not entirely comprehended by the media despite the terrorism of Anders Brevik and that ignorance is itself highly problematic because it underestimates the danger of reaction.

To put it technically; xenophobia is a second order effect.

I am asking you to explain the first order effect, the cause of allowing ancient borders to be superseded. Why is this happening?

If my posts make you angry then I ask you to resist replying. If I present an opinion it is because I believe it to be so. Liberals often ask questions of authority e.g. the so-called truth to power. I am doing same thing to them and calling them to account for their actions. If this is too blasphemous or irksome we can just move onto other topics.

One of the points made recently was that it's not necessarily possible to prevent "foreigners taking your job" in a globalised world. Prevent immigration? The industry goes overseas anyway. Prevent imports? Doesn't result in locally-made artisan iPhones. You can see that in e.g. Brazil where there's a high import tax on electronics. It doesn't result in import substitution but just handicaps people trying to build businesses that use tech.

There is no option for "make the foreigners cease to exist" or "make them stop wanting to compete their way up to our standard of living".

"Distrust" in general in the UK and the US is probably fed mostly by the spectacular rise of media management and post-truth politics. Trust is a valuable public resource: a high-trust society can get a lot more done because people don't have to spend all their time securing themselves and their business deals, but can trust that genuine infractions will be dealt with and normal non-harmful activities left alone. It's always possible for anyone to do well in the short term by breaching trust, but if too many people do this it's like overfishing (another EU issue). Once lying becomes routine we end up stuck in the wrong side of the Prisoner's Dilemma.

Many of the people most affected by immigration are service workers whose jobs cannot easily be outsourced.

There is a problem with this word: Neoliberalism.

First; It is mostly found in the pages of the Guardian and similar left wing publications. Right wing people almost never use it. This makes communication more difficult rather than easier.

Second; The definitions of this word vary greatly. In just the same way 'Communism' is used by the right wing as a word to describe everything from the Soviet to any manifestation of central government, the word 'Neoliberalism' has a range of meanings that encompass all possible forms of capitalism depending on who you talk to. Again, this makes communication harder.

Maybe you should stop using this word. I think it just makes an already difficult topic impossible to discuss.

A cynical definition:

Elites = rich people I don't like

Neoliberalism = rich people I don't like making money in a way I don't like

But isn't thr closer you get to pure capitalism, the closer you got to neoliberalism? Are public institutions and utilities supposed to exist within a purely capitalistic model?

It we still had true capitalism somewhere I would be surprised. With the dearth of regulation and coercive behavior of politicians many governments border on fascism. The factor many forget is that politicians and those invested in keeping them in office are adept at making you blame the opposite of what is truly at fault.

No, what has really sunk public opinion of government is that the internet has let anyone expose all the skeletons in the closet. Just how invasive and controlling governments have become and worse how far they want to go.

Don't blame a political style, congratulate freedom of information and that is a very good thing

Neoliberalism is also allowing authoritarian states to export authoritarianism via cheap near slave labor.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com