Comments 21

布莱希特的脱欧论断

Aug 17, 2016 Howard Davies

发自伦敦——在1953年东德工人罢工事件之后，德国剧作家布尔托·布莱希特（Bertolt Brecht）尖锐地指出：“倘若政府发现民众已经对其丧失了信心”，那么解决这一问题的更有效方式莫过于“解散这届人民并选出另一届。” 而在回顾六月的英国脱欧全民公投时，这种情绪也萦绕在许多人心中。

在公投运动热火朝天的时候，“脱欧”阵营领军人物，司法部长迈克尔·戈夫（Michael Gove）声称：“我认为这个国家的人民已经受够了那些来自于某些首字母缩写词组织的，从来不曾做出过正确判断的专家了。”他所指的是来自国际货币基金组织（IMF），经济合作与发展组织（OECD），伦敦政治经济学院（LSE）还有其他那些认定脱欧将损害英国经济的经济学家。

不幸的是，戈夫是正确的——但是与经济走向无关，而是英国选民对经济专业人士藐视态度。尽管经济界人士一致认为脱欧会导致英国陷入衰退并降低其长期增长率，选民们却跟随着他们的情绪而不是钱包来做决定。人们指责“留欧”阵营引用经济学家警告的目的就是企图恐吓选民就范。

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Registration is quick and easy and requires only your email address. If you already have an account with us, please log in. Or subscribe now for unlimited access.

Featured

What’s Been Stopping the Left?

Apr 10, 2018 Dani Rodrik
Political Machismo

Apr 10, 2018 Ian Buruma
Will China Really Supplant US Economic Hegemony?

Apr 2, 2018 Kenneth Rogoff
Should Tech Companies Be More Tightly Regulated?

Mar 30, 2018 Simon Johnson
Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

Mar 21, 2018 Richard N. Haass

0 Comments on this paragraph, 28 in all 28 Comments on this article

David Tavadian Sep 1, 2016

If a country borrows in a currency it can print (for example Britain or the US) Current Account deficits aren't as relevant. What matters more is the Net International Investment Position (often referred to as Net Foreign Debt). This measure shows cumulative Current Account balances. Britain's NIIP (less than 15% of GDP) compared to that of the US (40% of GDP) is easily manageable. Britain has rock solid property rights, a pragmatic population that genuinely accepts the values of capitalism and democracy and hence foreign investors are unlikely to pull out. Where would they go instead?
S Sam Aug 30, 2016

Former Bank of England governor, Lord King, said that the fall in the value of the pound since the UK voted to leave would help the country to grow. So take your pick, which expert you agree with.
José Manuel Sánchez Aug 23, 2016

EXCELENT article
I wonder if the British people are not a little concerned with those fiscal infernos such much defended by OECD members versus the fiscal accommodations their Irish neighbors have develop which have provided growth employment and adjusted purchasing parity
Brussels may look to the farmer like a wait of their tax money
S Sam Aug 22, 2016

As an expert you have decided to focus on post-brexit negatives like the sharp fall in sterling, but ignored the ftse high compared to pre-brexit, etc. Very biased view of an expert as usual and not able to see the forest from the trees.
Gisbert Stoyan Aug 22, 2016

In my text please read "understood" instead of "understand"
Gisbert Stoyan Aug 22, 2016

We have here a discussion of economic experts, but the "voters went with their hearts". I have the bad feeling that there was, in the background, a feeling of Britain in the EU at the wrong place: France, and even worse, Germany dominating there whereas, say, in WWII their roles were inferior or even very hostile. To me it seems that the Brexit should be understand also as a vote to work for a (re)conciliation like that of Kohl and Mitterand. This would need time and work (to have an impression, if needed, look into en.wiki and de.wiki for the differences in the texts about the bombing of Hamburg or Dresden).
simon noble Aug 21, 2016

One suspects that May is one of the few members of the cabinet who understands just how impossible it is going to be to square the circle. She probably also knows that no matter what, after Brexit the UK is going to have a small amount of growth shaved off every year, just like fees on a mutual fund, which when compounded over 10 years is going to be a significant amount. And that is assuming that the politicians can make the best of it. Given the liberal promises of subsidies that have already been made, it is most likely that the solution will be sub optimal.
Cary Fraser Aug 21, 2016

Economic growth - without conscious efforts to ensure equitable benefits of such growth are distributed across the population - is a harbinger of corruption and dysfunction. Is it any surprise that a population would vote against policies that foster marginalization?
David Chipping Aug 21, 2016

Firstly you grossly overstate the negative as current data supports and secondly you fail to grasp that there is a backlash against neoliberalism and fiscal policy; the so called experts who have been wrong on most counts, particularly in their predictions about neoliberalism and underestimating wage stagnation in the Western world.
In failing to grasp this you lose your status as the so called expert.
John Brian Shannon Aug 20, 2016

Hi Howard,

"The British people have spoken, and a way must be found to achieve their desires at the lowest possible economic cost." -- Howard Davies

Thank you for this beautifully-written post mortem on the Brexit vote.

Some elites are unable to grasp that Democracy is more important to citizens than Economics. Howard Davies 'gets' it.

Seventeen million Britons also 'get it' that Democracy must always take precedence over Economics -- and yes, they understand very well that economics *are* important -- but in the final analysis nothing tops Democracy.

And now, two months after the referendum, it appears that most or all of the fears regarding economic damage to the UK economy have proven false.

'The People' have spoken and 'The People' are always right (and if ever they aren't right, it's still their right to choose their own future)

As always, very best regards, JBS
j. von Hettlingen Aug 19, 2016

Howard Davies explains what the world famous German playwright Bertold Brecht has to do with Brexit. In the summer of 1953, in response to the East German communist government demands for increased productivity, workers took to the streets and Berlin was again reduced to chaos. The government suppressed the protesters, and the Soviet tanks rolled in. Brecht penned an ironic poem, declaring the masses' behaviour disgraceful, and urging them to win back the confidence of the government. Then he suggested: "Wouldn't it then/Be simpler for the government/To dissolve the people and/Elect another?"
Today Brecht's lines are still well remembered, whenever a politician implies that his country doesn't deserve him, prompting a critic or an opponent throwing them back in his face. In recent months Jeremy Corbyn came under attack within his ranks. Some suggested it would be easier if the Labour MPs who are sceptic of his leadership to dissolve the party membership and elect another.
The question is whether David Cameron's government could have been able to "dissolve" the Eurosceptics and "elect" another people. Davies points out what Michael Gove, one of the avid Brexit leaders said about Brexiteers, who were tired of hearing what "experts from all kinds of organizations" warned them against the economic consequences of Brexit. They accused the Bremainers of "using the economists’ warnings to try to frighten voters into submission." Indeed, "Gove was right – not about what would happen to the economy, but about UK voters’ low regard for economic expertise."
Unfortunately emotions overwhelmed rationality. Davies respects the outcome: "The British people have spoken, and a way must be found to achieve their desires at the lowest possible economic cost." Nevertheless the June 23 referendum laid bare the inequalities and discrepancies in a divided nation. London was the only English region which voted to remain in the EU, because the capital "and the Southeast are the only areas of the UK where people are better off," and they have been accused of "London-centrism", indulging in a culture of ignoring ordinary people and sneering at the provinces.
As there are many in London who want to break away from the rest of the UK, like Northern Ireland and Scotland, it will make "talks on the UK’s future relationship with the EU" all the more difficult. The author says "an outcome that benefits London (which, unsurprisingly, voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU) must be advocated with subtlety and care, lest it be seen as sacrificing the wellbeing of the many to the interests of a few." The Brexit vote has already taken a toll on the pound, which would hardly "narrow the trade deficit by making British exports more competitive," because "the UK has few price-sensitive exports for which there is significant spare capacity available to expand production."
Brexiteers had no trust in the experts before the referendum, because they didn't like to be told what to do. Now they don't want to be proven wrong, as they see it as "expert" discourse - economists' scheme aimed at "talking down the UK to prove that their gloomy forecasts were correct." So Brexiteers have to live with the consequences of possible "intra-European trade barriers" that are imposed, forcing companies "to invest elsewhere to access Europe’s single market, /and/ lower-paid jobs in disadvantaged regions may disappear altogether, or wages will fall further."
Walter Gingery Aug 18, 2016

Prime Minister May said it best: "We need an economy that works for everyone."
jagjeet sinha Aug 18, 2016

BREXIT : A VOTE FOR GLOBALISM

While we can endlessly debate the reasons for the vote to Leave European Union, Democracy has a process.
The Referendum was duly approved by Parliament, The Referendum has a Result - Right or Wrong is up to DESTINY.
Democracy has determined Destiny, since the Nation chose Democracy as its Governance template.
Now that Brexit is Brexit - the Troika of Leave Leadership is inside the Cabinet.
And the Nation anxiously awaits the Light that they saw - outside of European Economics.
America Australia Canada India & The Commonwealth were the foundation that made Britain Great.
The Commonwealth Preferences Area was the World's First and History's Greatest Free Trade Zone.
Britain, in hindsight after Brexit, perhaps should indeed have always remained at The heart of The Anglosphere.
The Anglosphere must have a heart big enough for those within Europe/World who may want to stay with The Anglosphere.
The litmus test perhaps that the official language of Club Anglosphere must be English.
The leap into the unknown - May indeed be history repeating itself, albeit enlightened by experiences as the World's largest bloc.
Brexit in fact was a vote for Globalization, against the narrow confines of Europeanization that threatened the Island's history.
Back at The Heart of The Anglosphere that was Made in Britain, Made by Britain, Made for Britain.
All the World is a Stage - Democracy may have saved Britain, yet again.
- jagjeet sinha Aug 21, 2016
  
  @ Simon
  
  For all the reasons the World's Economic Masterminds articulated, I voted Remain - convinced that Britain's best bet was inside.
  Have also been perhaps more sceptical than yourself on the Leave Leadership - should they confess their sins.
  But am always an optimist - and look for the Light that Democracy reveals, the angst that caused Brexit was for real.
  And the Light of The Anglosphere seems to be the only plausible one outside of European Economics.
  The second vote may turn out to be even more resounding - a possibility that needs Parliamentary deliberations.
  The will of the people - and their chosen representatives - must be respected.
  Unless you question Democracy itself ?
- simon noble Aug 21, 2016
  
  Jingoistic nonsense. Precisely what the article addresses. There is no "anglosphere" trade world waiting for British leadership. The US is quite happy running its own show and will let people in only on its terms. The rest have widely differing priorities and certainly dont pine for the mother country.
  The time for silly ukipery is past. What is needed now is some very hard headed analysis and negotiation plus an explanation of the realities of life to the v0ters. Voters are bound to be unhappy since it is impossible to ratify any of the main interest groups especially since the vote was so close and Leave had/has so many half baked conflicting ideas. Even the handful of Leave economists admit that there will be pain.
- jagjeet sinha Aug 19, 2016
  
  Hi John
  
  And often the source of those inspirations have been the insights that your wonderful comments have provided.
  Always enjoy your inputs - keep them coming.
  Best regards
  Jagjeet
  
  PS
  Just look at The Olympic Medals Table - Brexit seems to have inspired Britain to Number Two.
  Ahead of China Russia Germany - perhaps the best ever.
- John Brian Shannon Aug 19, 2016
  
  Hi jagjeet,
  
  That's an inspired post, IMHO.
  
  As always, very best regards, JBS
John Reid Aug 18, 2016

The author rather implies that the EU lies at the heart of all of Britain's troubles when the country's own laws (and the attitudes which underlie them) may have a lot more to do with it; in France and Germany there are minimum income laws that mean that immigrants have to be paid the same as anyone else, and that eliminates the pauperization of the unskilled being seen in the UK. at the present time.

It would also be a very good idea to read another column on Brexit available on Project Syndicate before coming to any conclusions based on this piece. You can find it here: https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/eu-rising-national-democracy-by-anatole-kaletsky-2016-08
Derrick Baragwanath Aug 18, 2016

I accept that Brexit makes bad economic sense in a macro sense. But it can make a great deal of sense at a micro or individual level. Economists focus on macro figures like GDP, GDP per capita, and the percentage of unemployed. But all these figures ignore the many who have been economically marginalized and disempowered by European integration and globalization. Even as some professional incomes have been rocketing upwards, semi skilled workers' wages have been stagnating, and their job stability has gone out the window. These people don't care if Brexit makes bad economic sense, their current situations are already very Hobbesian - `nasty brutish and short', or more precisely - without meaning , purpose and dignity. Such disempowered people with nothing to lose will willingly try a socially risky alternative, even if it does not make economic sense at a macro level. IF GDP growth does not provide an improved quality of life to the vast majority of people then it should not be used as a guide to economic policy.
- John Brian Shannon Aug 19, 2016
  
  Hi Curtis,
  
  Well stated, as always.
  
  Best regards, JBS
- John Brian Shannon Aug 19, 2016
  
  Hi Derrick,
  
  Your points are well-taken here.
  
  Britons can't eat GDP as you've alluded, but at the micro level their lot might improve after Brexit.
  
  Even if total GDP falls due to some financial sector corporate relocations, the bottom four UK quintiles might see improvement.
  
  All the more reason for the UK government to focus on creating a more diversified economy, one that works -- not only for 3% of the workforce, as per Mr. Davies' essay -- but for the entire workforce.
  
  Best regards, JBS
- Curtis Carpenter Aug 18, 2016
  
  Yes, to my eyes that's very well stated.
  
  The goal, it seems to me, should be to create a society that can deliver every individual a life filled WITH meaning, purpose and dignity. The links between that goal and the goals emphasized by our economic theories seems to become more tenuous every day.
  
  We teach our children to be good consumers, but forget to teach them how little that has to do with the art of living.
Rick Puglisi Aug 17, 2016

Want to teach the voters why the elite are wrong? Start with
1) Trade deficits should be expressed as a % of after-tax profits. Like in the US, 60% of profits and in 2006 120% of profits. Then the voters can accurately measure how corrupt and incompetent their leaders and economists have been.
2) Propose a tax on official foreign reserves that finance trade deficits. I dare you! The global elite would recognize this is a truly fair tax and go ballistic. Their propaganda machine would kick in with full force. They know that the alternative is gov't stimulus that first flows through their (fill in your favorite adjective) fingers.
stephan Edwards Aug 17, 2016

Expert, Economist Aren't those words in the thesaurus next to Lobbyist? Nobody believes what the so called experts are saying because whether it is fair or not for way to long all of their opinions basically are whatever benefits their paymasters AKA the rich. All of the experts have proven that they are hardly unbiased and are in the pay of those who benefit from there "Unbiased" (Which no one with the IQ of a guppy believes) opinions.
It isn't a question if they will sacrifice the wellbeing of the many to the interests of the few, The only question is how blatant it will be? Sacrificing the many for the few has been standard in the west for at 35- 40 years. It isn't going to change.
Bluntly if an "expert" said the sky was blue I would 1) go look, 2) Ask who was paying him?
The experts sold their names and credentials and said what they were paid say NOT THE TRUTH so no one believes them. Their own fault.
Curtis Carpenter Aug 17, 2016

Economists seem to have, for the most part. decided that they don't want to dirty their hands with the problem of distributive justice -- and that, I think, is why they have lost so much of the people's respect.

The people would rather be poor together than return to some sort of neo-feudalism in which the Economists play the role of the new First Estate, and the Financiers and Bankers take the role of the Second.
Steve Hurst Aug 17, 2016

The public will be educated thru the shopping basket
Jose araujo Aug 17, 2016

After 1 decade advocating for low wages, what did they expect?

Still puzzles me why the workers vote for parties that have restrictive policies on wages while promoting the wealth of the 1%.

The hold communist paradox re-emerged...
Emanuel Müller Aug 17, 2016

Perceived quality of life for a population can grow with a flat income per head, just like IQ and physical size, however, growing disparities in income growth speed, even when everybody sees his income grow in absolute terms, might be detrimental to the perceived quality of life in the frame of logics like "Keeping up with the Joneses". It might be subjectively perceived as nicer to have only 2-3 times more income than needed to live comfortably, in a country with quite a flat GINI, than to have 5 times more income while being spitted upon by financiers that proudly earn 50 times more than needed to live comfortably. Bertold Brecht lived in the RDA while writing this words, in probably a noticeably different country than the UK.

http://prosyn.org/aK9qPdu/zh;

Log in/Register

布莱希特的脱欧论断

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Featured

What’s Been Stopping the Left?

Political Machismo

Will China Really Supplant US Economic Hegemony?

Should Tech Companies Be More Tightly Regulated?

Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

A Tale of Two Realities

Who Cares About Big Tech’s Displaced Workers?

Germany’s Populist Temptation

The West’s Crisis of Confidence

No Blank Check for Development Banks

Missile Strikes Are Not a Syria Strategy

The “Next Eleven” and the World Economy

Should We Really Care About Inequality?