Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 39

Thread: John Michael Greer on brexit

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    573

    Default

    try listening from about 6:58, for a few minutes, and then if you wanna discuss, i'm happy to, but it seems a bit pointless for me to respond to what your saying.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by catalog View Post
    try listening from about 6:58, for a few minutes, and then if you wanna discuss, i'm happy to, but it seems a bit pointless for me to respond to what your saying.
    I listened for a few minutes and I've basically covered off his argument already - immigrants grow the economy, there isn't a 'fixed mount of jobs' which his argument relies upon. Empirical analysis shows weak support for the hypothesis that the SM has brought down wages.

    Now of course 'sovereignty' is a fig leaf, he is right to say that beliefs about immigration were a big driver of the vote and his theory that this is why the polls were wrong.....might well be true.

    But anyone expecting Brexit to lead to significantly less immigration is probably going to be disappointed, truth be told:


  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by comelately View Post
    I listened for a few minutes and I've basically covered off his argument already - immigrants grow the economy, there isn't a 'fixed mount of jobs' which his argument relies upon. Empirical analysis shows weak support for the hypothesis that the SM has brought down wages.
    I'd be interested in being pointed to this empirical analysis, that would be helpful. also, what is SM?

    I don't think he's arguing in favour or not of immigration though, and this is also not what I'm saying. I am pro-immigration. I don't want brexit to lead to less immigration. that isn't really the point.

    the point is acknowledging where it has an effect. cos if you identify that as an issue, surely there's a way forward.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    461

    Default

    I'll see if I can find the analysis at some point, but you could probably find it yourself easily enough.

    this is also not what I'm saying. I am pro-immigration. I don't want brexit to lead to less immigration. that isn't really the point.

    the point is acknowledging where it has an effect. cos if you identify that as an issue, surely there's a way forward.
    What effect are you talking about?

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    573

    Default

    so it's the combo of the two things he says:

    1. unrestricted immigration
    2. unrestricted movement of capital

    the two together have a negative effect on poorer people.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    461

    Default

    He hasn't demonstrated that. Or at least, you have not yet replicated any such demonstration.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    573

    Default

    ok. neither have you demonstrated the opposite.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    461

    Default

    It isn't my job to prove a negative. His argument is logically invalid.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    573

    Default

    if you're gonna say that the argument is invalid, but not really explain why, i suppose it's the end of the conversation.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    461

    Default

    Well 'logically invalid' has a very precise meaning - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(logic)

    As condescending as this might sound (and I do not claim to be one of the smarter people on this forum), it might be useful for you to (re)familiarise yourself with basic argumentation - it's a good inoculation from the arguments of red-pill purveyors.

    Though I actually have suggested the problem with his 'missing premises' in previous posts.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    573

    Default

    1. Lots of working class people continue to vote for Labour, as seen by the vote in 2017.

    yes, i agree that's true. but why have a significant minority turned away. to UKIP and other parties?

    2. I don't think the Democrats and the Labour Party are seriously comparable

    Really? Broadly speaking, would you not say they are similar, at least within the contexts of two party systems?

    3. Whilst he may think it is true because it is 'logical', empirical studies have shown weak support for the notion that 'open immigration' from the SM has depressed wages or reduced access to the labour market.

    Yeah, I'm not sure about this one. also i don't even think it matters. what matters is the perception. if people feel that they have got depressed wages or reduced access to the labour market, and they blame immigration, then that's a problem right?

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    461

    Default

    The perception of immigration is a problem, but the implications for rational public policy are not really obvious.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    573

    Default

    do you mean that the implications for a party in power are not obvious? Or that the implications are not obvious for you?

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    26,594

    Default

    I've been thinking a little about this thread. Perhaps catalog has been red-pilled and perhaps others are so concerned with innoculating themselves against the red pill they're not being being entirely intellectually honest. I think there are points you can concede here without turning immediately into Steve Bannon.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    26,594

    Default

    To say that there are not large and obvious similarities between Labour and Democrats is of course ridiculous.

    To observe that both have moved away from being parties of the working class is a common place. To say that both have been captured by corporate interests and lobbyists is a commonplace, with allowances made for Corbyns leadership.

    To say that immigration never has a downward impact on earnings is equally absurd. If I am pricing a job and pricing the same job is a man from eastern Europe willing to sleep 8 to a room and live off maggi noodles for a few years before going home then what on earth do you expect to happen? There are two different incentive structures in operation in any scenario of that nature. Inevitably.

    It's very much the same process as globalisation and the outsourcing of manufacturing. Something that 20 years ago was a bete noire of the left that now they feel obliged to defend, the right having captured that discontent for themselves.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •