Re: the UK election - personally I feel that people are not voting FOR Labour, they are voting AGAINST the Conservatives. Contrast 1997, where there was a general excitement about 'New Labour' taking over. I don't think many people are excited about a Labour government - partly as they haven't really said what they stand for - they are just sick of a tired, long-in-the-tooth Conservative government.
Incidentally, I think it was a similar thing last time with Boris - the floating voters were not voting FOR him, but AGAINST Corbyn and the extremes he wanted to enact.
With that said, I agree with your fundamental point, that voters want more money.
Can't really argue with that... but it is pretty consistent. People are unhappy with the current system almost everywhere - and vote against the incumbent. The big exception is Mexico where real wages went up.... and that's what I think all politics will end up focusing on - rising real wages.
Thank you for the AMLO errata ;-) I spent a few cycles in "what did I miss"
The only comment I have in on your experience with Economist recruiting process. That reflects the broader recruitment process. I hve heard from several very competent people seeking jobs (not at the Economist, but elsewhere). The influx of resumes has increased multi-fold and for all the $$ spent on "centers of excellence" the talent involved in screening is sub par. Sadly, it has boiled down to referrals over meritocracy screening (I have assisted several people to get their jobs recently). Inundation - is the reasoning I have heard
How do you contrast the apparent populist uprising in the West (EU + USA) with the apparent docility elsewhere in the Anglo-world and Asia (ie: Japan, most notably, but also Australia, Canada & NZ)?
Only Mexico has seen real political stability. Japan, Oz, NZ and Canada have all seen collapsing support for whoever is in government, as they don't address the key issue - reducing income inequality. Centrists in Europe suffer as the Eurozone project for rich europeans has probably come to be associated with income inequality. In the UK and US, rising wages have been addressed, but reducing corporate power remains largely unaddressed.
Not surprised voters are saying "show me the money". More focus these days on what's good for the short term vs long term, and good "for me" vs good for "the country".
The problem is we then get politicians with the incentive to only deliver what's good for the country short term. Defence capabilities come to mind. It's a long term impact, "no impact to voters personally" type of budgetary investment.
Personally, I get upset that tax rises and public service cuts have been used to cut corporate tax to try and stop companies moving their HQ offshore. I won't accept that type of deal, and I don't expect other people to do the same.
It's funny, my view has been that the current political ructions have been in place since the GFC. in the wake of that recession, people around the world struggled amid a slow-growth economy with limited job opportunities. My description was that the political class broke their agreement with the people, which was, elect us and we will generally leave you alone and do what we want. the people saw it as, just don't tax me too much and let me get on with my life.
but in the wake of the GFC, the political classes around the world did great for themselves while the rest of the population generally struggled. you may not remember the Austrian presidential election in late 2015, before the Brexit vote and Trump, where the populist won, but the results were overturned and in the recount/rerun (I cannot remember which) the establishment candidate won. that was the signal that populism was on the rise in a serious manner. Brexit and Trump followed. the establishment still do not understand what happened then as they have exactly zero contact with the bulk of the population. but they are very good at fighting with the tools of government and did so strenuously for all of Trump's presidency with the Russia hoax BS, the impeachments and all the other crap that they pulled.
After Biden was elected, they thought they could go back to their previous situation of sucking dry the public coffers for their own benefits and ignore the people. Alas, the people are now very aware of the situation so the governments stepped up their attacks. not only the indictments of Trump on weak/nonexistent cases, but look in Germany, where people are being charged with crimes for listing comments made by government officials during the Covid insanity and lockdown process (see Eugyppius recent post)
In the end, you are correct, it is a 'show me the money' but as per the European Parliament elections, it is very clear that many people no longer trust the incumbents to do just that.
while you never know, the number of traditional democrat voters (young, black, hispanic, billionaires) that have vocally explained they are done with the dems is quite a mountain to overcome I think and I believe that trump will win handily.
Long time listener/follower since pre Substack days. Great and succinct analysis. As usual.
Just one thing though, I heard you mention the Mexican head of govt as ALMO a few times but it’s AMLO :)) Lopez Obrador
AMLO! Yes - I am an idiot
Haha. C’mon don’t say that. Was just meant as a friendly nudge
No it's good to point it out... I have made that mistake before - I just can't seem to get it out of my head
Re: the UK election - personally I feel that people are not voting FOR Labour, they are voting AGAINST the Conservatives. Contrast 1997, where there was a general excitement about 'New Labour' taking over. I don't think many people are excited about a Labour government - partly as they haven't really said what they stand for - they are just sick of a tired, long-in-the-tooth Conservative government.
Incidentally, I think it was a similar thing last time with Boris - the floating voters were not voting FOR him, but AGAINST Corbyn and the extremes he wanted to enact.
With that said, I agree with your fundamental point, that voters want more money.
Can't really argue with that... but it is pretty consistent. People are unhappy with the current system almost everywhere - and vote against the incumbent. The big exception is Mexico where real wages went up.... and that's what I think all politics will end up focusing on - rising real wages.
Thank you for the AMLO errata ;-) I spent a few cycles in "what did I miss"
The only comment I have in on your experience with Economist recruiting process. That reflects the broader recruitment process. I hve heard from several very competent people seeking jobs (not at the Economist, but elsewhere). The influx of resumes has increased multi-fold and for all the $$ spent on "centers of excellence" the talent involved in screening is sub par. Sadly, it has boiled down to referrals over meritocracy screening (I have assisted several people to get their jobs recently). Inundation - is the reasoning I have heard
How do you contrast the apparent populist uprising in the West (EU + USA) with the apparent docility elsewhere in the Anglo-world and Asia (ie: Japan, most notably, but also Australia, Canada & NZ)?
Only Mexico has seen real political stability. Japan, Oz, NZ and Canada have all seen collapsing support for whoever is in government, as they don't address the key issue - reducing income inequality. Centrists in Europe suffer as the Eurozone project for rich europeans has probably come to be associated with income inequality. In the UK and US, rising wages have been addressed, but reducing corporate power remains largely unaddressed.
Why do so many “professionals” not get it.
Cause that materialistic and Marxist. And all those guys have read is Hayek. Don’t underestimate the ignorance of the “elites”.
There's none so blind as those who will not see
Not surprised voters are saying "show me the money". More focus these days on what's good for the short term vs long term, and good "for me" vs good for "the country".
The problem is we then get politicians with the incentive to only deliver what's good for the country short term. Defence capabilities come to mind. It's a long term impact, "no impact to voters personally" type of budgetary investment.
Personally, I get upset that tax rises and public service cuts have been used to cut corporate tax to try and stop companies moving their HQ offshore. I won't accept that type of deal, and I don't expect other people to do the same.
The economist is a complete waste of time at best
The regional sections are full of interesting and hard to find data. Its the leaders and political analysis that is poor.
I still aim to live a life interesting enough to have my obituary in the Economist.... but I fear time is running out
Poor form from The Economist! If it started publishing notes like this, I might start reading it again. Instead, I just giggle at the contra covers!
It's funny, my view has been that the current political ructions have been in place since the GFC. in the wake of that recession, people around the world struggled amid a slow-growth economy with limited job opportunities. My description was that the political class broke their agreement with the people, which was, elect us and we will generally leave you alone and do what we want. the people saw it as, just don't tax me too much and let me get on with my life.
but in the wake of the GFC, the political classes around the world did great for themselves while the rest of the population generally struggled. you may not remember the Austrian presidential election in late 2015, before the Brexit vote and Trump, where the populist won, but the results were overturned and in the recount/rerun (I cannot remember which) the establishment candidate won. that was the signal that populism was on the rise in a serious manner. Brexit and Trump followed. the establishment still do not understand what happened then as they have exactly zero contact with the bulk of the population. but they are very good at fighting with the tools of government and did so strenuously for all of Trump's presidency with the Russia hoax BS, the impeachments and all the other crap that they pulled.
After Biden was elected, they thought they could go back to their previous situation of sucking dry the public coffers for their own benefits and ignore the people. Alas, the people are now very aware of the situation so the governments stepped up their attacks. not only the indictments of Trump on weak/nonexistent cases, but look in Germany, where people are being charged with crimes for listing comments made by government officials during the Covid insanity and lockdown process (see Eugyppius recent post)
In the end, you are correct, it is a 'show me the money' but as per the European Parliament elections, it is very clear that many people no longer trust the incumbents to do just that.
while you never know, the number of traditional democrat voters (young, black, hispanic, billionaires) that have vocally explained they are done with the dems is quite a mountain to overcome I think and I believe that trump will win handily.
and then the world will really go bananas.
Didn’t your brother write in the Economist?
Nope- but two letters published!
It’s poor form not to correspond back after such a labour incentive recruitment process. 👎
Indeed