On the one hand, it's a very positive view of the world - people are thoughtful and know very much about the world, on the other hand, it's also a very bleak view of the world - people are egoistic and materialistic. People care more about society in a distant future than about themselves in the present? People were misinformed or simply irrational?
As so often, it's probably a bit of everything. Gosh, this is a very high horse.
So back on the ground, in what way does the OBR undermine representative democracy? It takes the decision away from an elected representative an gives it to a professional. That may be the right thing to do. The MPC is ant-democratic as well. As is, in an entirely different context, the European Court of Human Rights.
The proper case for doing this is not that they are not anti-democratic they are , but rather that this is a good thing to do for other reasons. In economic terms, the MPC is great.
Simon Wren-Lewis
In democracy terms, horrible. If representative democracy worked perfectly, then maybe you would have a case although remember the OBR does not control any decision.
- Endocrine Disruptors and Puberty (Contemporary Endocrinology).
- Weissbrodt and Danielsons Immigration Law and Procedure in a Nutshell, 6th!
- Cameron's plan to rewrite EU treaties is wishful thinking, says Martin Schulz!
- Introduction to “Well, How Did We Get Here?” – The Return of the Public?
But in reality it does not. Politicians want to hold on to power, and they can manipulate votes through a monopoly of information. Due to my brilliant management of the economy here is a tax cut. The OBR, by providing the public with unbiased information, actually improves representative democracy by reducing the scope for such manipulation. In defence of Simon's two points: On technical expertise, where he says "Indeed, the case I make here is partly to avoid politicians using the views of a small minority of economists as cover" the argument is that such independent bodies can help make the public debate better and more informed.
This is good for democracy. Regarding accountability, the point is that the public's influence over those in power doesn't only extend to elections every few years. Public accountability can be less direct than this. If all politicians feared were elections, they would act much more freely in the intervening years. To say that giving any unelected person power is anti-democratic seems like a very narrow definition of democracy to me. Read the post, then read it again, then drop the persistent prejudices before reading it again, then commenting. My point is that representative democracies are imperfect.
There are good reasons for doing things that are anti-democratic. The OBR is not a decision making body, and so isn't a problem in democracy terms. The MPC and your proposed fiscal councils are.
mainly macro: Wishful thinking and economics
I am not a democratic absolutist at all. What I am arguing is that you need to recognise that your arguments are anti-democratic, but may still be right. There are lots of fiscal councils around the world, and all are advisory. I was not proposing anything different. Perhaps I am wrong, but your argument, SpinningHugo, is that "the market" should dictate morality, as it "knows" better than any forms of government? To me this argument boils down to the 'tragedy of the commons' vs 'individual optimisation'.
If efforts of governance are not perfect it perhaps does not mean that Darwinism is the only alternative. Else we are into TINA country. I fully support the professor's call for a fiscal council. It really is long overdue.
Introduction to “Well, How Did We Get Here?”
I cannot see there is anything "undemocratic" about a body that makes no spending or taxing decisions, but simply ensures that a government act in a fiscally responsible manner. No different, really, from the decision to allow interest rates to be set by by an independent monetary authority. The principal goal is to run a properly constituted, sustainable, counter-cyclical economic policy. By that I mean we need to retire debt when times are good and be able to provide a solid fiscal stimulus when times are bad. The political process inherently supports the opposite.
In prosperity, left wing governments will typically spend on welfare measures, right wing governments may cut taxes. Neither want to embrace the unpopular tax increases or spending cuts needed to pay for them.
When things go pear shaped they panic and only then decide to embrace austerity - exactly when it is not wanted. Of itself, this damaging pro-cyclical process can lead to the boom and bust scenarios we commonly see.
- ?
- The Preposterous Rhinoceros or Alvins Beastly Birthday.
- .
- Post navigation.
- Teenagerliebe: Von der Aufklärung zur Initiation (German Edition)!
- Joseph Fouché (Biographies Historiques) (French Edition).
- .
A fiscal council, with oversight, could ensure the appropriate fiscal stance is maintained over the long term and help prevent these lousy outcomes. Lots and lots of advice readily available now. You give out lots of it. If it is just advice, with no expectation that the elected representatives must follow it, it wouldn't be anti-democratic. That isn't what you want. The reason is thus. The premise of your response is wrong. Economic questions like this are just not like maths problems in the way you want them to be. In economic terms, I am quite happy to concede that fiscal councils are a great idea.
That just isn't the point.
1 thought on “Introduction to “Well, How Did We Get Here?””
It is not in the interests of the UK to go in this direction. Let's be pragmatic and not look at it ideologically. Twice in the past fortnight, Cameron has threatened to veto future enlargement of the EU unless there are new curbs agreed on freedom of movement — a fundamental EU principle — for the acceding countries. In Brussels this is seen as playing to the nationalist anti-immigration gallery in Britain since there is scant prospect of any new members joining the EU in this decade. Schulz warned that if Cameron were to lead Britain out of the EU following a referendum, he would be shooting himself in the foot by cutting the UK out of the huge transatlantic free trade zone currently being negotiated between Washington and Brussels.
It's unthinkable," said Schulz. But a British exit is becoming increasingly thinkable, with senior officials and diplomats in Brussels emphasising that the UK question will move sharply up the European agenda this year. For the next few years, said one senior diplomat, "the existential questions in the EU are the governance of the eurozone, the treaty changes needed for that and whether the UK stays in and on what terms.
None of the three major parties are even thinking of doing anything serious to restrain or reform them. Rather, they are perceived in this country to be too big to tackle. This essay tries to explain how we got here. Instead I want to set out the older and specifically British back story, both economic and political. The crash of did not appear out of the blue. Yes, some of the key factors, notably the use of computers in the global gambling, are relatively recent.
But many of the building blocks were in place long before the Internet enabled the global casino we now live in. The story in outline is simple: For sixty years the British banks struggled to escape the constraints imposed on them by the rest of society. And as they overcame each obstacle they proceeded to create and lend money on an ever larger scale.