Comments 12

退休者和民粹主义

Oct 28, 2016 Anatole Kaletsky

纽约—如果唐纳德·特朗普输掉美国大选，在6月英国退欧公投后眼看就要席卷全世界的民粹主义浪潮会不会开始消退？还是反对全球化和移民的叛逆潮将以另外一种形式出现？

人们广泛认为，英国、美国和欧洲保护主义和反移民情绪的崛起反映了收入停滞、不平等性加剧、结构性就业和过度的货币宽松。但出于一些原因，应该质疑民粹主义政治和经济不景气之间的联系。

首先，大部分民粹主义选民不穷，也有工作；他们不是全球化、移民和自由贸易的受害者。反建制情绪高涨的主力军是劳动力之外的人群：退休者、中年家庭主妇和主夫以及享受残疾救济的教育程度较低的男性。

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

To read this article from our archive, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles from our archive every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.

Featured

Europe’s Critical Election

Sep 25, 2018 Ana Palacio
The Case Against Climate Despair

Sep 24, 2018 Carl Bildt
The Trade Wars of Codependency

Sep 25, 2018 Stephen S. Roach
Fresh Momentum for the Balkans

Sep 20, 2018 Javier Solana
Trump’s Darkest Days

Sep 25, 2018 Elizabeth Drew

Anatole Kaletsky

Writing for PS since 1995
54 Commentaries

Anatole Kaletsky is Chief Economist and Co-Chairman of Gavekal Dragonomics. A former columnist at the Times of London, the International New York Times and the Financial Times, he is the author of Capitalism 4.0, The Birth of a New Economy, which anticipated many of the post-crisis transformations of the global economy. His 1985 book, Costs of Default, became an influential primer for Latin American and Asian governments negotiating debt defaults and restructurings with banks and the IMF.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 16 in all 16 Comments on this article

Manu Oquendo Dec 26, 2016

Amazing how readers disagree.

This is so shocking that somebody should take notice and advise columnists to do a better job of fact gathering and analysis. It must be difficult to write articles today.

The establishment have lost much credibility and, apparently, the ability to read reality.
By the way, to measure "economic progress", we need Better Metrics. The ones in use today do not measure anything regarding Incomes, Equity and Cash Flow. In their absence, ¿how can anyone dare talk about "economic progress"
Rgds
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Barry Rosenfeld Nov 2, 2016

"The main demographic groups behind the anti-establishment upsurge have been people outside the workforce: pensioners, middle-aged homemakers, and men with low educational qualifications receiving disability payments." How dare these people oppose the heavenly vision of Kaletsky, crony capitalism, financialization of human life, and rule by those most fit to rule - in their own interest, of course. Revolution 4.0 is simple: people want to live where they feel comfortable, with people like themselves with whom to share interests and yes, values and priorities - just like Kaletsky and his circle.

Consider the problem of clubs, especially the private ones. The clubs in which young people are excluded because they can't find work, or have to work at jobs in which they are in effect the "precariat" of short-term and marginal employment, those who if "fortunate," can find work in non-financial services (not The City) that pay relatively low wages and salaries. They might care about the EU because it offers an escape from the UK, and Brexit has removed this safety valve. With greater economic liberalism liberality in social relations was just another source of pleasure: Dine, Dance and Disappear (n'est-ce pas?).
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Oct 31, 2016

Democracy has since the beginning been mostly representative and not direct. In other words, people choose someone they trust and they must make the decisions. This worked for the a long time pretty well until the years before the 2008 crisis when factories were moved offshore and bankers and billionaires worked hard to hard wire into the system a new kind aristocratic class. People rightfully felt betrayed and demanded direct democracy where they decide what happens.

Of course while the people can be trusted to not betray themselves they have no clue what is good for them, at least as compared to the ruling class.

So here we sit - on the one hand with capable but untrustworthy leaders and on the other hand a trustworthy but ignorant mob. Scylla and Charybdis, right?

Not so fast. There are ways to fix both the trust of elites and the ignorance of the mob. Both are essentially contained in what is called grassroots democracy today - in other words the power flows upwards in choosing leaders and not downwards. (i.e. You elect one person you know (most trustworthy and smart) to represent you in political decisions - she is paid by the state (similar to jury duty) and can wield your vote in choosing local and national leaders. Both you and your representatives can change their votes at any time and not on a dysfunctional four year cycle.)

Of course, such a change would require the full support of the left and the right, the wealthy and the poor. But with the animosity and identity politics being a giant bonfire constantly fueled by the press (to sell advertising, right?) we exist in what simply is a bad system filled with good people.

Articles like this achieve nothing because they simply perpetuate the system and essentially say things like "Me professor - you stupid " which only talks to half the people out there (the billionaires and people they pay handsomely) and creates a highly divisive society.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Bruce Oct 29, 2016

There are clearly a whole host of dissatisfactions mixed up in the rise of the populist movement. Indeed, one of its clearest characteristics has been they way in which it unites disparate voters by emphasizing what they are "against" rather than creating any coherent picture of what they are "for". The latter, as we are now seeing in the UK, is a much more fragmented debate.

However, I believe it is simply wrong to suggest that economic inequalities were not a fundamental ingredient. The question of how people are doing in the Globalised World (or at least how they think they are doing) was certainly central to the Brexit vote. 73% of remain voters believed that their life is better now than 30 years ago, whilst a majority of leave voters say they are worse off, which is remarkable when you actually think back to 1985. Even more importantly a majority of remain voters believed that life in future would be better for their children, but 61% of leave voters said it would be worse.

The clearest interpretation of the data suggests that Globalisation has become a deeply divided issue. Those who are well placed to benefit from the increased economic opportunities in a Globalised economy (young, well-educated, professional city dwellers) still support an international trade agenda and multi-cultural integration. However, those without the skills or opportunities to benefit are voting with Trump/Brexit to turn back the clock to a time when they felt they had a better future.

Of course this is not possible, not least because the coming job squeeze has far more to do with advances in technology than it does with either cross-border trade or immigration.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Sandiford Oct 29, 2016

It's not a backlash against modernity; it's a backlash against corruption. The establishment in London and Washington are seen as criminals, white-collar criminals but criminals none the less. Brexit has already achieved one major benefit for the people who voted for it - it has rid them of Cameron and Osborne. Osborne's policies were entrenching inequality by design. A remain vote would have kept those policies in place for decades. Being rid of Osborne is only the start but it's a good start.
- David Sandiford Oct 30, 2016
  
  Denial and anger - the first two stages of grief. The sooner we get on with stage three, bargaining, the better. The environment has changed and we should take the opportunities it offers.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Edward Laxton Oct 29, 2016
  
  The UK political system is pretty corruption-free. Unless you have a unique definition of "corruption". What we do have is a half-finished federal/devolution project and a preference for FPTP voting instead of PR. Both are a problem but neither needed the Brexit emotional spasm to fix them. A vote in favour of AV in the 2011 referendum would have been a constructive step instead of blaming the EU for our problems, like petulant narcissistic kids.
  
  There's no respectable economic analysis that says "most losers will be in London". That may be your desire - it does not make it true. The GDP reduction against trend will affect all regions, to a material extent.
  
  The economic problems of the UK - an addiction to debt-fuelled consumption and over-reliance on the finance sector - are not from the EU. There's a reason why we are our former colony India's 18th most important trading partner and Germany is her 5th - we don't make stuff people what to buy. These issues are not due to the EU. Rather, addressing them would have been easier or at least no harder, had we stayed in the EU versus leaving. Until we recognise our problems and assign accurate accountability for them, we will remain in this miasma of "Little England, free from johnny foreigner at last".
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- David Sandiford Oct 29, 2016
  
  The conditions around leaving the EU are a matter for negotiation. There will be losers whatever happens (as in any major change). Most losers will be in London. However, simply claiming the economy of the whole country will be wrecked doesn't make it so. The corrupted elction process in the UK has produced unrepresentative government. That's one reason Scotland will go independent. After that the North of England will demand a Parliament of the North and a regional federal system, removing tax and spending powers from London (IMHO). That will be good enough.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Edward Laxton Oct 29, 2016
  
  We needed to leave the EU and wreck our economy in order to get rid of Osborne and Cameron? Remind me why voting them out at a General Election wasn't good enough?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Martin Evans Oct 28, 2016

In the Brexit case you are missing a very important differential i.e. the North vs the South. If you go back and look at the breakdown of the polls you can't miss it. But perhaps this doesn't fit with your narrative.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Rick Puglisi Oct 28, 2016

Politics is a circle. There is a left side and a right side. There is also a top half (freedom) and a bottom half (authoritarianism). Populism is an attempt to peacefully bring politics back to the upper half of the circle and will continue to oppose the current path of descending into liberal authoritarianism (financial repression, QE, corruption, entitlements for anyone).
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
J W Oct 28, 2016

Some key issues to spoil an otherwise neat explanation that lets globalization off the hook:

The regressive, nationlistic older voters would always vote right wing and conservative. Their supposed allies -- laissez-faire free-markteers exist mostly among politicans and elites but not as a voting block. In any event they also vote staunchly conservative as well. Let us set aside this chunk of right wing voters because they are a constant and are not quite enough to win elections.

It is the recent extra support for populism that needs to be understood. Much of this is coming from people adversely affected by globalization and inequality. Consider that many people you lump into the old voter group only appear not to be affected by globalization (e.g. those on disability or early retirement). However they did see their old job taken away and felt betrayed. They also may have children or grandchildren who lack opportunities or worry about social unrest in their depressed region.

A proper analysis would look at who the new supporters are and leave out those who have always voted this way.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
George Moukazis Oct 28, 2016

By ignoring the worldwide regression of the western globalisation phenomenon, as a fundamental choice for living and organising our lives, the writer accelerates its demolition and not the opposite.
The US elections do not have the same importance as they had in the pro 2008 world or even at the beginning of the 00s.
The US regression leaves a power vacuum, that is a cultural and economic vacuum.
The writer's inability to see the world outside the western perspective leads him to the wrong conclusion: that the UK is the first and only victim of this "regression" phase.
In fact, it is the beginning of another way of organising our states.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Keith Roberts Oct 28, 2016

I have been reading Arie Hochschild's book about Tea Party members. My take is that these are very good, highly moral, and usually decent people who share the characteristic of being extremely naive about how the world works. That combined with a basically trusting nature leads them into constant betrayal, for which they seek explanations. Fox and Limbaugh provide those explanations, which conveniently absolve naive and trusting people from all responsibility.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Oct 28, 2016

THE SITUATION ROOM
There are so many interpretations of the Causes for Brexit, that it is virtually impossible to discover the truth.
And without the truth, the prescription for the way forward to Growth seems to be unclear.
Parliamentary Democracy has checks and balances - and deliberations within can throw light.
Of course, PSyn has offered so many explanations from Experts across the World.

Perhaps the answer was in the question itself :
SHOULD BRITAIN LEAVE THE SINGLE MARKET ?
This question perhaps has only One outcome.
Should Britain leave the EU - produced a different outcome.
Parliamentary Democracy may yet produce the perfect panacea.
Given the evident plethora of potential predicaments, there must be a Path to Perfection.
The Leave Leadership perhaps in vantage positions within The Cabinet now for Vision.
The deal that is based on Realpolitik must be set out - time for imaginary dream deals over.
Several European Countries have undergone numerous Referendum to resolve their Internal differences.

THE REAL DEAL - agreed @ Brussels - must be given the chance to be voted upon.
Outright departures from Free Market seems as remote from reality as Free Borders.
Expectations of European Union admissions of fallibility seems equally remote.
Continuing the Stalemate until Meltdowns change Postures - is also an Option.
There is a Price, however. The Market is merciless.

If history is any guide -
Meltdowns and Markets are the only tools.
It is not enough to profit from a Situation.
One must be able to create the Situation.
Winston Churchill.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jamel Saadaoui Oct 28, 2016

"men with low educational qualifications receiving disability payments." Surely, not poor people...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.