I may be reading this too late at night, but the theory seems to be that our benevolent, perfectly logical Ivy League-educated overlords regrettably have to break a few eggs to make a delicious omelette of economic prosperity for all, and those broken eggs are enough to make people throw up their hands and vote for Trump/Brexit/whatever just for a chance to cling to the present, the good old days, at the expense of that shining, golden future.<p>I have a feeling that people are <i>actually</i> pissed off because they don't think the established elite are generally benevolent, but rather that they act in their own interests at the expense of the prosperity of the middle and lower classes. Whether this is true is beyond the scope of this comment, but any discussion of this seemingly relevant alternate theory is conspicuously absent from the article.
I don't think the distinguishing characteristic of bankers is their desire for economic efficiency. It's their desire for self-enrichment.<p>Maybe the author doesn't mean actual <i>bankers</i>, but is instead referring to central bankers, in which case I'd argue that the meager GDP growth achieved from an unprecedented expansion of central banking assets has been anything but efficient.<p>Regardless, the fact that the author can look back the past 10 years of economic policy and find among all the mad and destructive monetary actions a "quest for efficiency" just shows that the author is as out of touch as the bankers.<p>What's happening is that the public at large is figuring this out (and this part the author gets right) using the imperfect vehicles of Trump and Brexit to try and stop it.
Quote from OA<p><i>"Voters in large numbers have been rejecting much of the underlying logic behind a dynamic globalized economy that on paper seems to make the world much richer."</i><p>In the UK, we don't actually <i>know</i> why 17+ million chose to tick the leave box.<p>My conversations with a handful of people who did vote leave suggest a range of reasons from immigration, through to 'loss of control'. Macroeconomic policy does not seem to figure prominently.<p>The government of Mrs May is further to the right of that of Mr Cameron. Her published statement does mention a softer approach to social factors and a desire to spread the rewards around more evenly...<p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/statement-from-the-new-prime-minister-theresa-may" rel="nofollow">https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/statement-from-the-ne...</a><p>...we shall see how that actually goes over the next few years in terms of actual law (look out for 'red tape' discussions - your red tape may be my employment rights) and policy (look out for some systematic way to replace the EU grant system that has recycled tax income from London/South to North).
I'm pro-economic liberty and voted for Brexit. Every analysis like this has tunnel vision: yes, the free trade opened up by the EU brought prosperity to an entire continent. Had we been voting for the 1970s era EEC, I'd have gladly voted Remain.<p>But in 40 years the EEC has evolved into the EU, with a constitution, a parliament, a president, a national anthem, a flag, supreme law-making powers and a currency.<p><i>Maybe</i> the Merckel anti-integration faction will remain dominant and they'll stop there. Given the Juncker faction pushes further integration as the solution to every crisis, and given the EU is in constant crisis, the next 10 years should be interesting.<p>The EU is a world-historical experiment in social democracy - free markets + state regulation + the welfare state. The consensus is that this system represents the current pinnacle of political evolution. (Both 'progressive' Scandinavia and 'capitalist' America implement variants of it). An alternative perspective is that it's simply a compromise system which emerged after WWII and is already showing severe cracks.<p>Maybe the EU will create prosperity by such actions as forcing Google to break up, throwing state money at impoverished regions, etc. Maybe the populations of France, Spain, Italy et al will accept that they can't fund welfare states by borrowing in perpetuity and stop voting in radical left-wing governments. Maybe they'll find an alternative solution to the ever growing debt-burden, over Piketty's proposal for seizing 15% of all bank accounts. <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_long-term_solutions_for_the_Eurozone_crisis" rel="nofollow">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_long-term_solutions...</a><p>I have no idea. I would like to see pro-EU articles which actually address these issues, and not simply assume that the only reason to be against the EU is that you're an ignorant racist, deluded by propaganda and lies.
> "Voters in large numbers have been rejecting much of the underlying logic behind a dynamic globalized economy that on paper seems to make the world much richer."<p>That's a very different narrative than the one I recognise. From what I've seen the main effects of globalisation have been twofold:<p>1. Lowering prices by getting the working classes of all countries to compete with each other.<p>2. Giving multinational companies greater leeway in tax avoidance.<p>The narrative that either benefits us all is somewhat misleading. Furthermore, with increased automation we'll see an even more rapid concentration of wealth in the hands of the few.<p>On a semi-related note, if you have the time to watch it (it's roughly 2 hours long, but it stays interesting throughout IMO), I can recommend this video, it's a conversation between Yanis Varoufakis and Noam Chomsky, it helped me develop a further understanding of the problems in the EU, and the issues that come from unelected bodies taking over our democracies:<p><a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2WG-uEND74E" rel="nofollow">https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2WG-uEND74E</a>
The person does not seem to draw to anything actionable, and his conclusion is vague.<p>I am not sure what he even means by 'optimizing for efficiency'<p>If your business depends on the happiness of your employees then optimizing for their happiness increases your bottom line.<p>If your business will be shut down if you commit fraud then optimizing for transparency is in your interest.<p>Is this person blaming economists for something that they do not have much control over - and that is thinking about individual lives. Its mathematically not possible for economists to worry about each person.<p>The reason why people are angry is that employment is closely linked to your ability to feed yourself and be a consumer of the global economy.<p>So when politicians talk about employment - what they mean is a person's ability to survive.
The issue he's talking about here is financialisation of the economy. It's an economy that's efficient at delivering large profits for an increasingly concentrated number of businesses and people.<p>Jobless recoveries, debt deflation, etc.<p>The answer of course is a reversal of the trend of neoliberalism over the past 40 years, to re-regulate banking and finance, increase government spending and return to full employment as a policy priority.<p>This is all achievable through understanding Modern Monetary Theory. If anyone is interested in finding out more check out this Facebook group[1].<p>If anyone in Australia is interested I'm also starting a political party based on these principles.[2]<p>[1] <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/introductiontommt/" rel="nofollow">https://www.facebook.com/groups/introductiontommt/</a><p>[2] <a href="http://www.australianemploymentparty.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.australianemploymentparty.org/</a>
An interpretation:<p>- Many people want to be able to have agency in what their future is like.<p>- A quest for economic and technological growth makes the future unknowable, and makes predictions about what skills (and capital) will provide a livelihood to support your family as tricky as predictions about how much a startups equity will be worth. Many (most?) people can't effectively make these predictions and they suffer pretty badly.
<i>Perhaps the pursuit of ever higher gross domestic product misses a fundamental understanding of what makes most people tick. Against that backdrop, support for Mr. Trump and for the British withdrawal known as Brexit are just imperfect vehicles through which someone can yell, “Stop.”</i><p>Did the author communicate at all with Trump supporters and leave voters, or is this just speculation? The support given in the article seems pretty weak: an unrelated abstract experiment about efficiency versus equality and a reference to another newspaper article about a BMW worker.
I think this idea that Trump is anti-establishment is a play right out of the Game of Cards show.<p>Look at Obama, he had the Hope and Change rhetoric going, they even gave him a Nobel Peace Prize.<p>What did he actually accomplish? Medical costs are 5x what they were in some cases. The middle east is still in disarray. Police and protesters are clashing.<p>They talk a big game before getting elected, but the reality is that they have very little power once they are elected.<p>They would be better off reading Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt then working off improving minor things.
People voted <i>for change</i> (Brexit?) in order to keep things unchanging?<p>Not sure the theory fully checks out, but it seems very clear indeed that the policy narrative that's all about economics is not something normal people can feel connected to. It's just that it's easy (?) to measure and thus has taken over the debate. But if I'm a German or Dutch worried that TTIP will bring America's 'chlorine-soaked chicken' on my plate you can tell me as much about job gains as you want and i won't hear it - statistics and numbers don't feel real. Policy has to find the reconnect with reality, that means probably to purge the lawyer and economist thinking that pretty much dominates all ministries and government.
Is there some source that elites want "hyper-efficient global economy"? From what I see, there is a push towards bigger government spending and higher taxes. A lot of that actually decreases efficiency, to the point it suffocates some industries.
Rent control and protectionism are different, and immigration for instance, a hot subject in today's politics, is another thing altogether.<p>Supporting rent control doesn't make you stupid/uninformed, but the only other option is evil.<p>Protectionism is a complex topic in a world with currency manipulation, labor laws variability and geopolitical conflicts; it's only simple (and evil/stupid) in a world without these things.<p>And immigration is not just about economics, it's about who you want to live next door and vote. Here, people can disagree regardless of economic views.
It might have something to do with the fact that the weaker the economy gets the more the rich get rich and people know it. Whether they recognize that it through inflating of the stock market, bonds and real estate with cheap credit or not.<p>Central bankers can't seem to get it into their thick heads that their 'wealth effect' is a 'poverty effect' for those who didn't get the chance to own those assets before they pumped them up out of reach.<p>The fact that the central banks of Japan and Switzerland own most of the companies that we are employed by and pay money to thanks to their ability to create money out of nothing should make people angry.
I recall a study that showed that above average income workers supported Trump at a higher percentage. If that's true, it seems to contradict the whole premise of this article. They should have asked those same Yale grads if they were voting Trump or not.
I'm a little amazed at the tone of this article.<p>People rent a home, and then exploit the democratic process in a beggar-thy-potential-neighbors strategy. They use things like rent control and other anti-migrant policies (e.g. anti-Google bus policies in SF, anti-Hijab laws in France) to enrich themselves at the expense of others.<p>Because her wealthy uncles lost their job, and had a small drop in their standard of living, "Andrea" wants to screw over a bunch of desperately poor people a world away.<p>Unlike "Andrea", our elites behave far better. Populists try to protect their favored ethnic groups - witness Shiv Sena trying to pass laws preventing non-Marathis from driving taxis, or "tech bros" entering SF. In contrast, I've never heard a white banker complaining about allowing a Marathi to be the CEO of Citi. Elite institutions - think of banking or tech - tend to be truly global enterprises, open to anyone who can demonstrate the requisite ability.<p>Somehow the author doesn't draw the obvious conclusion: that our elites are honest, moral and principled individuals, while our masses are selfish, tribal and greedy people out to beggar their neighbors. For good policy making the conclusion is that we should try and increase the power of the elite.