Brexit Thread VIII: Taking a penalty kick-ing

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I suppose you could quibble about whether Stelios is doing it purely out of unchecked greed or because he also wants to inflict suffering on his customers, but then anyone who's ever taken an EasyJet flight probably knows a lot about suffering anyway.
 
Strangely enough the Greeks emigrated to the US, Australia and wherever else they could find because there were no jobs and, of course, the country was a police state with one massacre after another. The miracle was for the elites.

Chronology:
The Greek Miracle is from 1950 to the oil crisis, the 1973-1975 crisis. (do mind the big oil shipping and merchant fleet of Greece)
Typical rightwing governments from 1950-1967.
The Greek military Junta is from 1967-1974
And yes many, many emigrants to all over the world from typical 1950-1974.
And after 1974 many Greek emigrants in Europe returned to Greece with the economical crisis in Europe.

The Greek Miracle: 7% yoy GDP growth from 1950-1974, only second in the world to Japan in that period

And ofc most of that went to the richer Greeks, not only to Onassis. That happened everywhere. I can find back that the GINI of Greece is in 1974 0.40 just like Italy. The NW European countries 0.25-0.30 in 1974.
I wish there were older data for Greece... but hey... somehow readily at internet available modern comprehensive tables and articles never go further back in time than 1970.
But it was a very long period, 23 years (!) of steady growth and low inflation. And you know @Takhisis , what high inflation (15%-25%) is in practice.

I can imagine from the top of myhead three things for that big migration wave:
* The potential to build up a big comprehensive industrial economy in Greece was too low as mountainous peripheral country, to absorb all the people from population growth, agricultural and industrial productivity increases, the devastating damage from German WW destroyal of Greek machinery,
* many communists and socialist moving away from the new rightwing clique
* and on top the big earthquake of the Ionian Islands.

Here two graphs from this article: https://www.thejournal.ie/greece-problems-1970s-explainer-1994793-Mar2015/

Schermopname (810).png
 
Last edited:
Fascinating last graph. But the arrow with red text is an understatement.

Greek Output per head tripled 1960 to 1980 (pre EEC days) in 20 years.

They joined the EEC in 1981 and it stagnated.

When the EEC became the EU and the Euro came along It bubble expanded
on deficit spending and dubious loans, and then crashed back due to austerity.

It increased from 12,000 to 15,000, just 25% in the longer period 32 years 1981 to 2013.
 
Fascinating last graph. But the arrow with red text is an understatement.

Greek Output per head tripled 1960 to 1980 (pre EEC days) in 20 years.

They joined the EEC in 1981 and it stagnated.

When the EEC became the EU and the Euro came along It bubble expanded
on deficit spending and dubious loans, and then crashed back due to austerity.

It increased from 12,000 to 15,000, just 25% in the longer period 32 years 1981 to 2013.

The story on what happened after 1981 should imo begin with what happened between 1974 and 1981. That is a very inconvenient story for many people. And I have better things to do than explaining that all.
Then on what happened between 1981 and for example 2008 and then onward...
Nobody really wants to know that either, but giving some numbers is easy.
Everybody is in his own trench there as deep as Arne Saknussem got in that book of Jules Verne.
A lack of proper administration since decades in Greece making it difficult to have hard data on almost anything.
Allowing Greece to join the Euro a very big mistake by everyone involved. A renewed version of the Marshall Plan would have been better with a normal EU membership.

But roughly:
When the EEC became the EU and the Euro came along It bubble expanded
on deficit spending and dubious loans, and then crashed back due to austerity.
yes
whereby noted that the wasted workers hours during the bubble (no pressure on real productivity growth) and the wasted hours during the austerity from unemployement (is in 2019 roughly 15%) are roughly what Greece GDP level is missing now.
So without that waste of missed improvements and activities the GDP would have been in a slow continuous curve upward and somewhat above the current GDP level.

If you look at graph below of GDP per capita from 1960-2018, and ignore that artificial bubble of Greece driven by importing money, you can see that France and the UK are not that dissimilar and both roughly twice as big as Greece in 1960 to 2018.

In 1960:
UK 1,398 and FR 1,334
Greece: 520
Factor: 2.6

In 1974:
UK 3,6666 and FR 5,328
Greece: 2,829
Factor: 1.3-1.9 average 1.6

In 1981:
UK 9,599 and FR 11,105
Greece: 5,380
Factor: 1.8-2,1 average 2.0

In 2018:
UK 42,962 and FR 41,470
Greece: 20,317
Factor: 2.1-2.0 average 2.1

=> The total diffference (as factor) became smaller from 1960 to 2018 (from 2.6 to 2.1)
=> in 1974 The smallest factor 1.6, the Greek Miracle did the catch up.
=> 1974 till 1981 stagnation
=> 1981 till now: Greece kept the same factor of roughly 2 (from 2.0 to 2.1) and Greece has some reserve potential left as catch up.
Comparisons between now and the arificial peak just before the GFC are meaningless, although I do guess that many Greek people believed during that boom in another Greek Miracle. The leading politicians and financial specialists (incl those of the EU) are there to blame imo.
It were the Greek and Romans who nurtured the four "cardinal virtues" for leaders and "fortitudo" was not among the Greek leaders, some other as well:
Four cardinal virtues were recognized by Plato and in the Bible, classical antiquity and in traditional Christian theology:
  • Prudence (φρόνησις, phrónēsis; Latin: prudentia; also Wisdom, Sophia, sapientia), the ability to discern the appropriate course of action to be taken in a given situation at the appropriate time.
  • Courage (ἀνδρεία, andreía; Latin: fortitudo): also termed fortitude, forbearance, strength, endurance, and the ability to confront fear, uncertainty, and intimidation [and from me as note: the ability to tell your people in what situation you are, level with them]
  • Temperance (σωφροσύνη, sōphrosýnē; Latin: temperantia): also known as restraint, the practice of self-control, abstention, discretion, and moderation tempering the appetition. Sōphrosynē can also be translated as sound-mindedness.
  • Justice (δικαιοσύνη, dikaiosýnē; Latin: iustitia): also considered as fairness, the most extensive and most important virtue;[1] the Greek word also having the meaning righteousness
Schermopname (812).png

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=GR-FR-GB
 
Last edited:
Well that might be so in your case. I used to be an office worker before I retired, and when
I occasionally worked from home, the only thing I had to pay for was the electricity powering the computer.
I'm glad I was able to convey to you the issue in relying on personal anecdotes when making sweeping assumptions about what parts of the UK are able or not able to do.

That's what people said when the danger of a pandemic like the 1918-20 flu was pointed out...

Just because one thing happened many years ago you can't dismiss it happening now. Address the argument, don't try to dismiss it fallaciously. If you think it can't happen now, why not?
Understanding infection trends through a population is a far different kind of science to a poster reminiscing about a time where allegedly we dealt without migrants supporting our labour. Nuance, yeah?
 
Understanding infection trends through a population is a far different kind of science to a poster reminiscing about a time where allegedly we dealt without migrants supporting our labour. Nuance, yeah?

You tried to make an argument based on "it was 75 years ago, the world changed". I made a point of showing that this is not generally try, and you have to do more than that: what has changed in this case that makes referring to an example 75 years ago invalid?
I'll give a few suggestion:

Has the british population become incapacitated en masse?

Is the agricultural products market structurally incapable of paying wages that would attract enough local citizens? If so, do you support a structure (legal and regulatory) that results in paying workers under what is generally considered a living wage worth accepting in that local community? Because, what the hell, there are miserable foreigners who'll accept it and you may as well use them? And you think of yourself as a leftist... :rolleyes:
 
You tried to make an argument based on "it was 75 years ago, the world changed". I made a point of showing that this is not generally try, and you have to do more than that: what has changed in this case that makes referring to an example 75 years ago invalid?
I'll give a few suggestion:

Has the british population become incapacitated en masse?

Is the agricultural products market structurally incapable of paying wages that would attract enough local citizens? If so, do you support a structure (legal and regulatory) that results in paying workers under what is generally considered a living wage worth accepting in that local community? Because, what the hell, there are miserable foreigners who'll accept it and you may as well use them? And you think of yourself as a leftist... :rolleyes:
The world has changed in a lot of respects from then. There are going to be other things that have changed less, or not at all. Using an example of something that might not have changed is not evidence to the contrary of what I was talking about.

A lot of wartime comparisons are flawed for the single and inarguable reason that we were at war. It was not a normal situation. Normal rules did not apply. Normal laws did not apply. If he had picked a different period in history, maybe there could've been a more arguable comparison, but he didn't, and so here we are.

The British population is what it is. I see no reason why we can't pay migrant or native workers a fair wage personally - that's my leftism for you. You seem to object on the principle that you always object with regards to - "immigration bad". That very nationalistic tendency of yours, in this case using the poor treatment of migrant workers as some kind of gotcha for my political beliefs? What a sad attempt ;)

I want migrant workers to be paid fairly. That has absolutely nothing to do with the situation during World War II, a reference to which you weirdly tried to defend (with, uh, no evidence either. Go figure). I also object to British students or some other desperate-for-work demographic also being exploited for their labour. What a performative display you just put on there, lol.
 
The British population is what it is. I see no reason why we can't pay migrant or native workers a fair wage personally - that's my leftism for you.

I see many reasons why it does not. But more importantly, I see that it does not.
That is the reality and pretending not to see it doesn't make it go away.

You seem to object on the principle that you always object with regards to - "immigration bad". That very nationalistic tendency of yours, in this case using the poor treatment of migrant workers as some kind of gotcha for my political beliefs? What a sad attempt ;)

Nationalism is important because the nation is the only effective field of political battle. The left has been crushed - and make no mistake, it is very much suppressed now, perhaps more effectively than under your typical old military dictatorship - because its leaders lost sight of this. Labour's defeat in the UK recently is a very good example: it started losing its traditional voters, low-wage workers, who despised it over its fight against brexit. A repressive dictatorship may silence people out of fear, but does not change their convictions; betrayal changes their convictions.

This is not a thread about the issues around nationalism, but you would understand brexit finally if you understood this issue. Try reading this. Israel, born in "nationalist sin" more recently than other countries, and still practicing the very sinful parts, at least has people giving serious though to the positive aspects of nationalism also. In older nations too many people have lost sight of what is at stake: it can be bad and it can be good. And there is no ignoring it. The political community is the national community and the fights over social influence, class, wealth share, happen within it.
 
@Hrothbern

I accept your point that Greek GDP/capita changes were not that
different from that of France and UK for most of that time period.

IMO John Major and Gordon Brown exercised good judgement in keeping
the UK out of the Euro; sadly the Greeks thought it would benefit them.

I am not sure on what basis the Greeks were sold into joining the EEC,
and later adopting the Euro. What I do know is that the principal argument
put forward for the UK to join the EEC was greater exports and economic growth.
This did not occur for the UK thereby invalidating the prime reason given for joining.
European project enthusiasts argue that the UK had higher growth than it would
have had if the UK had not joined, I believe the reverse is true, but then neither of
us can 'quantum slide' into an alterative reality to prove our particular points.


@Gorbles

I am not old enough to reminesce about WW2. I could, but I am not going down the rabbit
hole of alternative analogies as debating that is in itself a distraction from my posting points.
There have indeed been changes since WW2; and more recently since 2016. Farmers and
others need to adjust to changed circumstances and with the UK resources currently available.

A lot of wartime comparisons are flawed for the single and inarguable reason that we were at war.
It was not a normal situation. Normal rules did not apply. Normal laws did not apply.

We are not yet in peaceful co-existence with Covid 19; and in my opinion, it is not a
normal situation now, normal rules do not apply now and normal human laws do not apply.

Edited above: replaced Germany with UK
 
Last edited:
Labour's defeat in the UK recently is a very good example: it started losing its traditional voters, low-wage workers, who despised it over its fight against brexit.
Labour's "traditional voters" are trade union members, public sector workers, young people and ethnic minorities. It overwhelmingly retained all of these demographics.

What occurred in 2019 was not the mass desertion of the Labour Party by the working class, but an unusual polarisation among swing voters: that older and low-education swing-voters tacked away from Labour, and that young and high-education swing-voters tacked towards it, leading to a consolidation of votes in urban areas where Labour were already strong, and away from small towns where they were relatively weak. This is surely significant, but it does not lend itself to narratives of the "death of the party".
 
Last edited:
I see many reasons why it does not. But more importantly, I see that it does not.
That is the reality and pretending not to see it doesn't make it go away.
But exploiting a different demographic is . . . okay, because at least they're not suckering migrants? Which is the new reality in the absence of the exploitation of the former demographic, and you pretending not to see that will also not make it go away. None of this is a successful gotcha of whatever beliefs you believe I hold.

We (allegedly) didn't rely on migrants during World War II (though we, uh, fielded a bunch of foreign regiments that get very little modern acclaim and indeed are barely a footnote in UK education compared to any other involvement of the UK. Funny, right?). But you didn't bother actually debating that - you attempted to quibble on the logic of "some things have stayed the same since 1945, ergo, you cannot claim that things have changed". It's a sucky argument because it's tediously semantic. It exists only in the reading where I claim "everything that was in a specific place in 1945 has changed". I didn't claim this. Maybe next time, try less of that? Especially with such a poor attempt at a personal jab thrown in.

Nationalism is important because the nation is the only effective field of political battle. The left has been crushed - and make no mistake, it is very much suppressed now, perhaps more effectively than under your typical old military dictatorship - because its leaders lost sight of this. Labour's defeat in the UK recently is a very good example: it started losing its traditional voters, low-wage workers, who despised it over its fight against brexit. A repressive dictatorship may silence people out of fear, but does not change their convictions; betrayal changes their convictions.

This is not a thread about the issues around nationalism, but you would understand brexit finally if you understood this issue. Try reading this. Israel, born in "nationalist sin" more recently than other countries, and still practicing the very sinful parts, at least has people giving serious though to the positive aspects of nationalism also. In older nations too many people have lost sight of what is at stake: it can be bad and it can be good. And there is no ignoring it. The political community is the national community and the fights over social influence, class, wealth share, happen within it.
Nationalism as it exists in reality (as you're fond of saying) is bad, pretty much full stop. Could it be reclaimed, as per the theory proposed in the book? Perhaps. Should it is a whole other thread. I don't really have the budget to buy a book just for the sake of arguing nationalism with you (also, personal aside, I struggle with books these days. It's something I'm working on, but also difficult to work on given personal circumstances. So there's a lot of resistance to me even trying the book were I interested).

I understand Brexit - your failing is assuming that people who oppose modern nationalism (seemingly in any form, because actual evidence in support of the book's overview I'd argue is limited) do so from a position of a layperson. I'd argue (as per Traitorfish's post I just caught while writing this) that you don't understand Labour, or even UK politics as a whole.

Besides, your whole shtick about nationalism in the context of Brexit is that you view it as a net positive regardless of how much damage is done to the people of the UK as a consequence (dragging in old words from past threads, but I don't think your position has changed here), so your arguments to the merits of nationalism are both inadequate in the current context of the toxic aspects of nationalism (present in Brexit) as well as with regards to the past context I just mentioned.

We are not yet in peaceful co-existence with Covid 19; and in my opinion, it is not a
normal situation now, normal rules do not apply now and normal human laws do not apply.
You do realise that we cannot, in fact, shoot the virus?

Regardless, back to the subject of fruit-picking, the exploitation of labour, and Brexit. We are not in a normal situation (and beyond Covid-19 haven't been ever since Cameron enacted his popularity gambit of the referendum in the first place). Perhaps if said labour was paid properly, or at least legally, and upheld by the government as something that should be paid properly, we wouldn't be in this mess. Alas, the government doesn't seem to be very good at that - who can forget the unfortunate example of Cornwall who appealed the government for funds following the realisation that they wouldn't qualify for EU funding anymore?
 
I recall the PSF also dismissed its decline back when Hollande even won...

But exploiting a different demographic is . . . okay, because at least they're not suckering migrants? Which is the new reality in the absence of the exploitation of the former demographic, and you pretending not to see that will also not make it go away. None of this is a successful gotcha of whatever beliefs you believe I hold.

exploiting a different demographic wouldn't be as politically easy as it is exploiting immigrants. Therein lies the seed of necessary changes...

What you are arguing above is that exploitation is inevitable, will always happen. That change is impossible, therefore you dismiss even thinking about strategies for it.
You have already surrendered to the logic of capitalism. You just appease your good liberal consistence by thinking of yourself as "left-wing". Your whole attitude is that it submission to the current rules of the game is inevitable, that the current rules are just fine.
 
I recall the PSF also dismissed its decline back when Hollande even won...
Man, you don't understand Labour, lol.

exploiting a different demographic wouldn't be as politically easy as it is exploiting immigrants. Therein lies the seed of necessary changes...

What you are arguing above is that exploitation is inevitable, will always happen. That change is impossible, therefore you dismiss even thinking about strategies for it.
You have already surrendered to the logic of capitalism. You just appease your good liberal consistence by thinking of yourself as "left-wing".
Oh no, the person that supports the ongoing destruction of the country I live in called me a bad leftist. What am I going to do.

I'm not arguing inevitability at all. I've repeatedly talked about what could and should be done to raise the working conditions out of exploitation. This would invariably have consequences for the people (read as: farmers) used to exploiting this labour market, but we'll deal with that hypothetical once we move past the first. I also support UBI, but hey, that's another thread again.

Exploiting students is a very easy thing politically for the Tories. Selling it to the public also tends to go without a hitch. Again - you don't seem to understand UK politics at all, especially anytime from 2013 onwards.
 
I recall the PSF also dismissed its decline back when Hollande even won...
Labour won more votes in 2019 than in 2015, as an absolute number and as a share of the electorate, and despite an increased turnout. While it might be frivolous to compare the makeup of the Commons to a hypothetical proportional system without considering how the plurality system affects voting choices, nothing like the collapse of the French Socialist Party is evident in the numbers we actually have.
 
I'm not arguing inevitability at all. I've repeatedly talked about what could and should be done to raise the working conditions out of exploitation. This would invariably have consequences for the people (read as: farmers) used to exploiting this labour market, but we'll deal with that hypothetical once we move past the first.

What needs to be done is empowering the people who are in the position of being exploited. This will not happen so long as there are more people to replace them when they make any move to demand more for them. The reserve army of the unemployed is a thing. And no country with open borders can have a policy of no unemployment (as can be done, because it was done in the post-ww2 era until the 70s) because others will flock in. Disempowerment for wage laborers under the current rules is built-in. As sanders in the US said before he too blew it and lost necessary supporters, open borders is a billionaire's thing. The tragedy of the UK (and the US) is that having just two "parties that count", its "whole left" fell for it. But Labour is already crumbling. As the continental social-democrats crumbled.

@Traitorfish: it was the swan song of Labour. Wait and see.
 
@Hrothbern

I accept your point that Greek GDP/capita changes were not that
different from that of France and Germany for most of that time period.

IMO John Major and Gordon Brown exercised good judgement in keeping
the UK out of the Euro; sadly the Greeks thought it would benefit them.

I am not sure on what basis the Greeks were sold into joining the EEC,
and later adopting the Euro. What I do know is that the principal argument
put forward for the UK to join the EEC was greater exports and economic growth.
This did not occur for the UK thereby invalidating the prime reason given for joining.
European project enthusiasts argue that the UK had higher growth than it would
have had if the UK had not joined, I believe the reverse is true, but then neither of
us can 'quantum slide' into an alterative reality to prove our particular points.

"I am not sure on what basis the Greeks were sold into joining the EEC,
and later adopting the Euro".

I would like to have a list of borrowings of Greece for the period 1970-1993, the government, banks, companies... how much was loaned by private banks and other financial institutions at for them favaroble interests based also on the high Greek inflation, high risk of the Drachma... based on the risk of Greece defaulting.
Once all those loans were in Euro... that default risk was reduced to very low.
I would also like to have the totals in loans in that list which EU countries were the home base of all these banks etc.
I also think that all Southern EU countries (their elites, banks, etc) very much preferred to get a "too big to fail" scale size regarding financial policies differing from the North. Before Spain, Portugal, Greece joined... France and Italy were on their own.
For banks all over the world Greece joining the Euro is another expansion of paradise.
And yes... for sure there were many politicians who also thought that some financial discipline against vanity and hobby spending from politicians would be good. The EU as cover to force actions you do not dare to profile yourself with.

But such considerations do not apply to the UK.

"but then neither of us can 'quantum slide' into an alterative reality to prove our particular points"
Yes in terms of sound evidence
For the future filtering out Brexit from Covid, the global trade war, the China effect will also be very, very difficult.

I do think BTW that the UK joining was besides economical arguments at that time also driven by geopolitical arguments.

Almost the same geopolitical arguments that made De Gaulle such a strong opponent of the UK joining. De Gaulle saw the UK as part of another world, the Anglosaxon world of the US.
And without the UK involved in mainland Europe, with the old Holy Roman Empire politically weakened by the then recent Nazi heritage of Germany, but economically a powerhouse, the rest of the HRE splintered in nations.... he saw excellent opportunities for France as the leading nation of Europe back on the global stage.
 
Last edited:
What needs to be done is empowering the people who are in the position of being exploited. This will not happen so long as there are more people to replace them when they make any move to demand more for them. The reserve army of the unemployed is a thing. And no country with open borders can have a policy of no unemployment (as can be done, because it was done in the post-ww2 era until the 70s) because others will flock in. Disempowerment for wage laborers under the current rules is built-in. As sanders in the US said before he too blew it and lost necessary supporters, open borders is a billionaire's thing. The tragedy of the UK (and the US) is that having just two "parties that count", its "whole left" fell for it. But Labour is already crumbling. As the continental social-democrats crumbled.

@Traitorfish: it was the swan song of Labour. Wait and see.
We've been over this pet theory of yours before, and it's tiring. The UK does not have open borders. We didn't even have them when we were a part of the EU. We weren't even in the Schengen. We had controlled immigration, and we still have controlled immigration.

You're drawing an equivalence between A and B because you have a long-standing history of railing against A (immigration, basically). You spin this as being for the empowerment of the working class, when we have solutions available to us that don't involve closing our borders further. Certainly, kicking all the impoverished migrants out of our country isn't going to do them any good either, which is what is happening at the moment by dint of the Brexit-fueled anti-immigration focus the government is a fan of.

You have no actual solutions, and beyond a vague solidarity in terms of working class empowerment, absolutely no understanding of progressive politics (grassroots and / or party-based) in the UK. You don't define how we in the UK would empower exploited demographics. You just say that this needs to happen, and that it's being facilitated by open (* not actually open) borders. I disagree. It is primarily facilitated by a long-curried distaste for manual labour and other "working-class" (or otherwise labour-intensive) jobs. There's a lot of "intelligence" tied to types of job (and of course racism can go hand-in-hand with that).

If a marginalised demographic is primarily the one being exploited, of course racism (and other forms of bigotry) are a factor. But they're not necessarily the defining factor, because you can't just examine this from that singular position. Your politics have to be intersectional. And yours cannot be so long as you continue to extrapolate all arguments from the pre-emptively offered suggestion of "closed borders". That is the circular trap you keep getting locked into, and why it's particularly funny when you talk about how leftist somebody is or isn't.
 
@Traitorfish: it was the swan song of Labour. Wait and see.

Will this be another prediction that you will quickly forget when it inevitably turns out to be wrong or will you tout it to the skies when you bend over double to pretend you foresaw it (something vaguely similar) all along?
 
Labour won more votes in 2019 than in 2015, as an absolute number and as a share of the electorate, and despite an increased turnout. While it might be frivolous to compare the makeup of the Commons to a hypothetical proportional system without considering how the plurality system affects voting choices, nothing like the collapse of the French Socialist Party is evident in the numbers we actually have.

It seem you have very conveniently forgotten/omitted the UK general election in 2017 (12,878,460 Labour votes) when Labour had
more than in 2015 (9,347,273 Labour votes) and more than in 2019 (10,269,051 Labour votes) and more than in 2010 (8,609,527 Labour votes).

Labour did best of the four in 2017 when Jeremy Corbyn promised to implement the UK leaving the EU and
worst when Jeremy Corbyn accepted Keir Starmer's policy of obstructing the UK departure from the EU.

And some of us believe that by appointing Keir Starmer. who believes in rule from Brussels. as their leader;
Labour has simply doubled up on its mistake and is, alas and sadly for the left, becoming irrelevant.

I could go back further citing Edward Heath who took the UK into the EEC without a referendum, being
defeated by Harold Wilson who promised a referendum; and of how Labour under Tony Blair promised
a referendum and defeated Michael Howard but having reneged on that referendum promise was defeated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom