tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post4076053978752064072..comments2024-03-19T09:54:37.187+00:00Comments on mainly macro: Immigration and the expertsMainly Macrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09984575852247982901noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-1486486139211809112016-10-10T08:07:00.668+00:002016-10-10T08:07:00.668+00:00We need to look at the real world, not spreadsheet...We need to look at the real world, not spreadsheets. In normal circumstances, an investor lending to government expects a real return, i.e. the ability to purchase more output when the bond matures than could be done today with the money invested in that bond. That additional real output requires real resources to produce, resources that could otherwise have been used to produce alternative outputs. This is a real opportunity cost.<br /><br />Of course, in today’s conditions, with negative real interest rates, underutilised capacity and poor infrastructure, there are plenty of opportunities for public investment that would bring a real social return that could more than cover the cost of servicing the loan. But that’s because of real world conditions, not fiddling with spreadsheets.<br /><br />It’s also untrue that reserve balances do not pay interest. That’s not been true for about a decade and in 2009 the Bank of England extended interest payments to cover all reserves, not just those it considered to be excessive. This is a hidden subsidy to the financial sector and one which will become expensive when interest rates eventually rise, unless the policy changes.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10623963884259918737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-18729842129488451712016-10-09T22:19:04.071+00:002016-10-09T22:19:04.071+00:00This is pretty much what Cameron negotiated as par...This is pretty much what Cameron negotiated as part of his pre-referendum deal. Sadly, most people I spoke to in the referendum run-up parroted the right-wing media line that the deal 'isn't worth the paper it's written on', indicating these details didn't seep into voters' thinking.<br /><br />That deal is now shredded, but I was hopeful these elements will be resurrected in the Brexit negotiations to come - Theresa May's recent speech suggests not. Her focus appears to be on forcefully reducing immigration, which wouldn't happen under this system as, despite what some papers have been saying for years, the vast majority of EU migrants come here to work, not claim benefits.<br /><br />S Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-85508853614908801992016-10-05T23:28:58.325+00:002016-10-05T23:28:58.325+00:00No Uk Debt is held overseas the £'s never leav...No Uk Debt is held overseas the £'s never leave the Bank Of England. It is also savings.<br /><br />"Sterling savings" held by foreigners.<br /><br /><br />As for servicing the debt, all that happens is an interest bearing bond is replaced by a non interest bearing reserve balance.<br /><br />Moved from one cell on a spreadsheet to another debt serviced.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-1869860402923462952016-10-05T20:39:09.631+00:002016-10-05T20:39:09.631+00:00So sticking their necks out for the EU was wrong? ...So sticking their necks out for the EU was wrong? Of course it wasn't. <br /><br />If you want MPs to go for evidence, as of course they should, that means doing it for the EU, as well as on austerity and immigration.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Tubby Isaacsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-2332438112918553992016-10-05T15:32:51.533+00:002016-10-05T15:32:51.533+00:00Theory is not important at all. The facts are.
Un...Theory is not important at all. The facts are.<br /><br />Unfortunately economists are very precious when it comes to their theory. Like an evangelist that sees evidence of the arrival of the New Jerusalem, economists will see Neo-classical theory.<br /><br />SWL writes It is true that "with rational expectations the future will have an impact on the present. That is why the exchange rate fell sharply on news of the vote. "<br /><br />Do you really think the exchange rate fell because of rational expectations? It would be better if you consulted major currency market players to find out the real reasons why people decided not to purchase or sell sterling. My guess is that it relates to uncertainty about the future and decisions being put on hold, but in the end like a proper social scientist you have to get the documented evidence - including talking to the players and getting the necessary info from them - to find out. You will probably find there is in fact also a lot of understandable but what could actually be called irrational behaviour going on here.<br /><br />Toy models are not the way to get to the facts. This is one reason experts, and economists in particular, are greatly distrusted by many scholars outside the profession, not to mention the general public. It is also, I think, what Paul Romer is really trying to get at.<br /><br />NK.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-87671340527539947232016-10-05T09:27:12.910+00:002016-10-05T09:27:12.910+00:00"The obsession with immigration divides worke..."The obsession with immigration divides workers". Exactly, and for workers to unite the immigration has to stop. I want that weapon taken out of right wing hands for good.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-56409313430129539402016-10-04T12:31:00.351+00:002016-10-04T12:31:00.351+00:00The Labout govt limited unskilled immigration from...The Labout govt limited unskilled immigration from outside the EU. A policy choice. I doubt SW-L would argue against removing the limit, because he knows it would be a unnecessary vote loser. That leaves the question of why SW-L doesn't want to limit unskilled immigration from the EU. Because it would legitimise fascists? Because the anti-immigration economic arguments are often guesswork and thus should be defeated to teach people a lesson? Dislike of the 90s Tory Europhobes or 2010s Kippers and desire to give them a bloody nose? With the prospect of the Tories getting back in in 2020 with the help of immigration policy I think the stakes are too high to defend mass immigration any more.<br /><br />Nonetheless I think Blissex is trying to be a mind reader over what affluent southerners think and doesn't know what "many" of them "think". I agree to the extent that there has certainly been a middle/working class split over Brexit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-86043814541399345972016-10-04T12:25:16.443+00:002016-10-04T12:25:16.443+00:00More importantly mass immigration means we can'...More importantly mass immigration means we can't discuss more important solutions for housing and so on due to the ease of blaming immigrants and the proven willingness of the public to believe it. And while Lyn is right that the supply of jobs is not fixed (immigration affects demand and output not just the number of jobseekers) a lot of people assume it's fixed, esp if they feel vulnerable. To be on the safe side.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-37810656167077316992016-10-04T12:21:03.477+00:002016-10-04T12:21:03.477+00:00Then Labour has a choice. 1. Promise to keep mass ...Then Labour has a choice. 1. Promise to keep mass immigration, but muzzle the press to prevent itself losing elections over the issue. Then lose the election as a result of saying so. Or: 2. Admit you can't muzzle the press and reducing immigration is so popular and economically harmless that they should do it, and win elections to carry out other left wing stuff which is important, unlike mass immigration which is not important to have.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-11348634445971799812016-10-04T12:18:09.592+00:002016-10-04T12:18:09.592+00:00That isn't 101ism, since William was merely as...That isn't 101ism, since William was merely asking a question and not making a claim.<br /><br />Observation time and time again? "The large body of research finds that immigration has a negative and small — albeit statistically significant and consistent — impact on wages (Longhi, Nijkamp, and Poot 2005; Kerr and Kerr 2011), with some studies showing larger negative effects (Borjas 2003; Altonji and Card 1991). Regarding job displacement, most of the evidence suggests immigration has negative but mostly minor effects on employment (Longhi, Nijkamp, and Poot 2008). http://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/the-impact-of-immigration-on-the-native-born-unemployed (The Levy Institute is left wing)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-65017669095367066202016-10-04T12:09:03.868+00:002016-10-04T12:09:03.868+00:00Stopping mass immigration is a political necessity...Stopping mass immigration is a political necessity whatever SWL says about the economic impact. Enough people believe that they are worse off because of immigration to keep Labour out of power regardless of whether it's true. Why compromise on every issue EXCEPT this one? Will we turn into Nazis if we stop immigration?<br /><br />I would like a link to the UCL study. Net economic effect on the whole economy, or on income per capita? The latter is what people are concerned about. Adding more people may make the economy bigger, but if that growth doesn't raise per head incomes then it's pointless.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-80636540045631472652016-10-04T08:08:10.422+00:002016-10-04T08:08:10.422+00:00The economist's approach to understanding immi...The economist's approach to understanding immigration is very unscientific. It usually consists of simple gini coefficient analysis, or fancy econometric analysis based on very poor social understanding. The logic of the economist when it comes to immigration and the labour market is based on neo-classical theory which makes an argument similar to comparative advantage in trade in the goods markets. They are not taught to be critical or are aware of opposing schools of thought - so they are in no position to really understand what they are saying because they have no way of gaging it. <br /><br />Neither the xenophobe nor the economist understands the effects of immigration which are clearly very complex and of which its seems we know very little - and very little real effort has been made in trying to understand them.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-48039544565223533932016-10-03T15:51:25.734+00:002016-10-03T15:51:25.734+00:00Indeed, I'm always astonished by the fact that...Indeed, I'm always astonished by the fact that people don't get that social housing pays for itself over time (that's what rent does).Paul Ewarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00057355765883155749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-65893217120036039592016-10-03T10:48:10.405+00:002016-10-03T10:48:10.405+00:00Instead of free movment of people could we not hav...Instead of free movment of people could we not have free movment of jobs.Allowing people to come if they have jobs already set up,and having employers prove that the job as advertised here first.nanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14223129004498245989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-73824419700616566622016-10-03T07:53:51.556+00:002016-10-03T07:53:51.556+00:00Yes of course the infrastructure point can be deal...Yes of course the infrastructure point can be dealt with by having overcrowded trains, immigrants living in shanty-towns, pot-holed roads instead of decent roads, etc. But is that what what you want? Moreover, if we as a nation DON'T increase infrastructure investment as necessitated by immigrants, then we all bear the costs of creaking and over-crowded infrastructure. I.e. natives pay a price either way.Ralph Musgravehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09443857766263185665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-44187032258847536812016-10-02T18:39:01.283+00:002016-10-02T18:39:01.283+00:00No, they shouldn't. The job of politicians and...No, they shouldn't. The job of politicians and parties in a representative democracy is not to "speak up for people", it's to represent their own principles, with voters free to chose the parties and representatives whose principles most closely line up with their own. There are already plenty of anti-immigrant parties to choose from already without Labour following in their footsteps. Labour should stand with the centre-left principles of addressing the real sources of poverty and poor service provision, such as government cuts and inequality, rather than joining in the right's pile on against immigrants.Regular Gonzalesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-87801922173672258962016-10-02T18:33:27.206+00:002016-10-02T18:33:27.206+00:00"Instead, its immigration, immigration and mo..."Instead, its immigration, immigration and more immigration is all they talk about."<br /><br />Wow - real through-the-looking-glass stuff here. It's the right that's blatantly obsessed with immigration, not the left. Left-wing discussion of the issue is largely in response to the right's obsession with immigrants, and what left-wing desire there is to maintain immigration is in large part an element of a larger desire to retain close ties with Europe. By contrast, it's the right that are so obsessed by it that they want to sacrifice UK membership of both the EU and the European single market, with all the benefits that brings the UK, and free movement for British people in Europe, on the altar of bringing down immigration. When it comes down to, immigration is practically the only the issue large sections of the right care about, to a completely unhinged degree.Regular Gonzalesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-31099887018135743232016-10-02T17:33:25.254+00:002016-10-02T17:33:25.254+00:00"the distributional effects of immigration ar..."the distributional effects of immigration are at least a factor of 10 larger than the average effect"<br /><br />I'm unsure what this means. Please elaborate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-91352152440046052582016-10-02T16:48:21.480+00:002016-10-02T16:48:21.480+00:00Theory is a tool, Magnus, not a master.
"Ot...Theory is a tool, Magnus, not a master. <br /><br />"Other (more nuanced/expert!) theories recognize the possibility..."<br /><br />Ah, so there is more than one. So which is correct? It is not like science, you can't do a controlled experiment to find out.<br /><br />I don't deride theory. SW-L accepts that NHS access really is affected by incomers whatever theory one can construct that says it should not be. Is he deriding theory?<br /><br />It may well be that immigration doesn't reduce wages on average, though I doubt very much that that can be measured. But, to be rather trivially obvious, immigration lawyers will do better with higher immigrant flows so just taking averages, everyone else can do a little worse and the overall effect can be zero. So theory wins but in this example it was worthless.<br /><br />So clearly a theory that applies to the economy as a whole does not necessarily apply to every individial part of it. That must surely be understood. <br /><br />Regarding my "theory", put yourself in the position of a trade body whose members face a shortage of programmers (or accountants, economists, lawyers, whatever). Do you push government for more programmers from India or do you push your members to, say, double programmers' pay, increase apprenticeships and training to attract more people into programming? Which will be the easier? Which will be cheaper in the short run? Which raises wages for sure and which probably does not? Are those difficult questions? <br /><br />Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00218203537404735086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-16253286721706563552016-10-02T10:59:37.954+00:002016-10-02T10:59:37.954+00:00Spot on.Spot on.Paul Ewarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00057355765883155749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-23772361664046993952016-10-02T10:52:18.641+00:002016-10-02T10:52:18.641+00:00Spot, moreover, globalisation simply masks reality...Spot, moreover, globalisation simply masks reality. Whilst the British can congratulate themselves on ridding the country of tedious or back-breaking labour (we haven't but bear with me), said labour still takes place, just elsewhere, in often inhumane conditions with often appalling labour laws. And we benefit from it on the high street. The task, then, of a true socialist, is to unmask said reality and make connections with the new globalised working class.Paul Ewarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00057355765883155749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-69713519535577006152016-10-02T10:37:29.366+00:002016-10-02T10:37:29.366+00:00But the problem is not immigration, but the fact t...But the problem is not immigration, but the fact that the UK government and UK companies are failing to train enough people. That's been an unsaid target for right wing (and New Labour) governments as part of austerity, and a lot of companies are happy to see their costs reduced. The left wing response, as outlined by Corbyn, is to force investment in training.<br /><br />Recently I've worked a lot with Romanians in the IT industry. Very few have any desire to migrate to the EU - like most people if they are prosperous in their native country, then they are happy. OK, those outsourced jobs are a net loss to the EU in the short term. But, in the long term, skills and knowledge are increased in Romania, and wages rise in that country. That has always been the pro-EU argument IMHO.gastro georgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-22349412548598477922016-10-01T16:38:36.970+00:002016-10-01T16:38:36.970+00:00«before immigrants (or more accurately a “net immi...«before immigrants (or more accurately a “net immigrants”) pay for themselves, they have to pay for the tens of thousands of pounds worth of infrastructure investments they necessitate.»<br /><br />They surely don't need extra infrastructure: they can just squeeze in busier and busier infrastructure, while paying taxes and NI contributions for worsening services. Consider the living space that many immigrants squeeze in while affluent middle class middle aged Waitrose-shoppers live large in 4-5 bedroom ever appreciating micro-manors:<br /><br />https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/25/overcrowding-housing-raid-26-living-three-bedroom-east-london<br />http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2337695/Shanty-town-suburban-London-street-Romanians-scrape-living-amid-squalor-dump.html<br /><br />The future aimed for by Conservatives and New Labour will involve the reapparance of tenements/favelas in the UK:<br /><br />http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/28/london-the-city-that-ate-itself-rowan-moore<br />«Meanwhile, if you fly in a helicopter over suburban boroughs such as Hounslow or Newham, as council enforcers sometimes do, you will see ramshackle structures in back gardens, some of which will be housing uncounted numbers of migrants. Whereas iceberg houses are permitted by loopholes in the planning system (which some local authorities are now trying to close), these are unauthorised and try to evade detection. A Brazilian architect once asked me why there were no favelas in London. They are coming now – sheds in back gardens, small flats and houses appallingly overcrowded.»<br /><br />Just like in Silicon Valley:<br /><br />http://granolashotgun.com/2016/02/08/spring-in-the-silicon-favela/<br />«Right next door is one of the endless Silicon Favelas. There’s no legal market mechanism that will supply accommodations to people earning minimum wage within a hundred miles of Silicon Valley. NIMBYs make absolutely certain that subsidized housing for such people is never built. These camps are everywhere, although my friend had no idea they existed until I pointed them out to her. Since every municipality in the region has the same homeless situation the police play Whack-a-Mole with the camps pushing them from one odd spot to the next. I regularly take the time to talk to these folks. The popular assumption is that they’re all alcoholics, drug addicts, and schizophrenics. It’s a convenient way to relieve ourselves of any responsibility for their condition. Mostly, the homeless are the discarded working class – perfectly ordinary people with the usual combinations of strengths and weaknesses who have simply run out of options. The minimum wage in San Jose is $10 an hour. Median rent for a one bedroom apartment is $2,300.»<br /><br />But "F*ck YOU! I got mine" in the USA and "Blow you... I am allright Jack" is the motto of the affluent southern middle classes. They won't tolerate to have any of their property rents and capital gains to be "wasted" on infrastructure for "losers":<br /><br />www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/rachelsylvester/3556538/Brown-and-the-conservatory-building-classes.html<br />«With the cost of housing, energy, childcare and food going through the roof, people who are relatively well paid can no longer afford to live the way they did even a year ago. As the middle classes book holidays in Torquay rather than Tuscany, drink tap water instead of San Pellegrino and put the conservatory they had been planning to build on hold, they start to question the amount they have to pay to the Government.»<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-59328357147266642162016-10-01T16:19:36.789+00:002016-10-01T16:19:36.789+00:00The high levels of immigration to the UK do not ha...The high levels of immigration to the UK do not happen by accident. [ ... ] choices at the behest of those sections of industry that are primarily focused on short term profit.»<br /><br />Not just industry: many southern affluent middle class property owners and pensioners who are enthusiastic about lower wages and higher house prices in the south thanks to immigrants, and think that as long as the immigrants know their place and keep to their filthy basements and don't show their rude foreign mugs in public it is fine.<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-26481163869641523632016-10-01T16:12:08.017+00:002016-10-01T16:12:08.017+00:00«Watching certain Labour politicians trying to get...«Watching certain Labour politicians trying to get on to the anti-immigration bandwagon is painful to see.»<br /><br />But easy to explain... Those people were parachuted as Progress entrysts onto safe Labour seats, which are safe for Labour as they tend to be in low-income northern ex-mining and ex-industrial areas that would never vote Conservative, and they gave for granted that voters in those safe seats would keep voting Labour without much knowing who their MP was. There is ample evidence, for example: «Interviews with 1,128 people found that 22% of people could name their own MP, compared with 38% in 2011.» (Hansard, BBC)<br /><br />Now there is a disconnect there: those MPs are quite right wing and think that the Labour party should represent southern «aspirational voters who shop at John Lewis and Waitrose» (T Hunt) and thus labour should be a «quasi-Conservative Party but that we should stick our necks out on Europe.» (P Mandelson, but I think that S Wren-Lewis has recently argued for the same).<br /><br />The problem is that many right wing MPs have drawn a lot of attention to themselves by campaigning very loudly against "Leave" and against Corbyn, and their constituency voters, and in particular their CLPs, have woken up and taken notice. It will be interesting to see how Owen Smith, Angela Eagle and Tristram Hunt will explain their positions to their CLPs.<br /><br />Even worse the elimination of 50 seats and boundary changes result in the disappearance of many of those safe seats, and the current entrysts will have to apply for selection in a new seat, and will have to explain at selection time in a new seat to many pro-Corbyn, pro-Remain CLPs in safe seats why they campaigned anti-Corbyn, anti-Leave.<br /><br />That explains also the suicidally nasty attacks of the PLP against Corbyn: if Owen Smith had won the leadership, he could have rammed with NEC complicity a lot of right-wingers down the throat of the CLPs of newly defined safe constituencies, like Tristram Hunt was.<br /><br />With Jeremy Corbyn as leader, as he has said that mass re-selections will likely not happen, he won't certain endorse MPs who have attacked him personally and publicly. In the next few years being *endorsed by Corbyn* (and helped by Momentum mobilization) will help candidates win selections and after that elections.<br /><br />Thus the sudden turnaround of many quasi-Conservative (or worse: Rachel Reeves has been considerably to the right of Ian Duncan Smith on social insurance) entryst MPs-for-life on discovering they may have be selected by their CLP instead of P Mandelson.<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.com