Comment by palmotea
15 hours ago
> The problem with these threads is everybody wants to complain about Trump, but nobody wants to talk about policies that actually help buffer against the far-right. Eg implementing robust safety nets and low inequality, to reduce status anxiety and grievance. How many of you software engineers want to sign up for European-style welfare states and pay for them with high taxes? It's basically tragedy of the commons...
> Economics on its own is probably not sufficient either. You probably also need widespread unionization...
I think you're right about that.
> ...a Cordon Sanitaire, and probably German-style intelligence surveillance of the far-right too.
> Edit: Looking at the comments below you also need a MUCH better education system. FYI 99% of the time immigration is great for the economy, which is why the US has been wholesale accepting immigrants for a very long time.
You're getting off track there.
You also need a democratically responsive government. If the technocrats say "99% of the time immigration is great for the economy" and the people say "we don't want it, less immigration, please," what do you do? If you want a Trump, you say "shut up people, the technocrats say you're wrong, and you're going to get what they recommend good and hard." If you want to avoid a Trump in the future, you say, "OK, we'll tighten the border and reduce immigration quotas."
I don't care how smart or correct you are: if you can't make your case to the people and get your policy widespread popular support, it shouldn't be implemented in a democracy, end of story.
A lot of western societies are aging. If you don’t import immigrants, you’re on a timer. The economy slows, quality of life drops, and people elect the far right anyway. It’s happening to Japan right now. I’d set up the safety nets and hope enough people will appreciate the better cost of living and reelect sane politicians.
Of course there are no guarantees. People hated Obamacare and punished democrats so hard they lost the most seats since Eisenhower.
If the quality of life was unsustainable without immigration, what makes it sustainable with?
Current immigrants come from countries with high population growth. When their population growth slows down, will they get their immigrants too?
> If the technocrats say "99% of the time immigration is great for the economy" and the people say "we don't want it, less immigration, please," what do you do?
Do less immigration where people feel it, invest into economic education of the general populace.
>> If the technocrats say "99% of the time immigration is great for the economy" and the people say "we don't want it, less immigration, please," what do you do?
> Do less immigration where people feel it, invest into economic education of the general populace.
There can be a lot of legitimate disagreement about what the economy should look like or what's "great" for it. It's not just "GDP number go up."
And isn't it undemocratic for a government to be "investing" into educating people to think about and prioritize issues in a certain way (e.g. according to certain economic ideologies, like a technocrat)? A democratic government is supposed to represent its people, not control them to make them "better" according to some official's opinion.
I was more thinking of raising the school budget and increasing the economic part of the curriculum, but for adults I think there is a difference between honest information and manipulative advertisements.
You've pretty much nailed why almost all the highest immigration nations are monarchies. You basically need a ruler to tell the populace they are his bitch and they'll get the free market and open work visa immigration (UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain) whether they like it or not.
It does work and made those countries much richer but basically it won't easily happen under democracies with paths to citizenship for immigrants and strong welfare. For both rational and irrational reasons.
1 reply →