Funcke's ten year rule.

Where no two people are likely to agree.
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11703
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Funcke's ten year rule.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Sep 22, 2018 1:43 am

Reference, New Scientist, 15 September 2018, page 24

Manuel Funcke of the Free University of Berlin, and colleagues, carried out a political analysis of trends following economic slumps. Apparently, it is normal for politics to swing toward the extreme right, and towards protectionism about ten years after every such economic collapse. This year is ten years since the 2008 slump. The USA has protectionist and anti immigration Trump stuffing up the presidency. Sweden has a new government with a far right coalition partner. Britain has Brexit, probably mostly due to fears of dark skinned immigrants.

The reason for this trend may be the negativity bias, a fallacy based on insecurity, where people value stopping a loss more than achieving a gain worth as much or more. Hence protection and opposing immigration. Another possible cause is apathy, leading to liberals not voting.

The good news is that the swing to the right tends to be temporary, and liberal values become important again.

I cannot guarantee that Funcke's ideas are correct. Perhaps this time around, things will be different. But so far, the swing to protection and right wing prejudice seems to be full force.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4386
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Funcke's ten year rule.

Post by ElectricMonk » Sat Sep 22, 2018 5:28 am

is this the article you are referring to?

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/eve ... ebesch.pdf

It seems that they indeed have a lot of historical data to draw on, all through a century that has seen massive change.

So I'm inclined to think that Funcke et al. are correct -

mostly because xenophobia and protectionism is just too expensive for a developed economy.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9769
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Funcke's ten year rule.

Post by Poodle » Sat Sep 22, 2018 7:39 am

The UK has a long (and fairly obvious) rule - the party reoccupying the centre ground (as opposed to our long-established centre-ground party - the Liberals, now the Liberal Democrats, who are boring by definition) is the one which gets elected. It then proceeds to slowly move in its preferred political direction until it becomes blatantly partisan, but realises this too late to prevent electoral defeat.
One thing which plays very little part in electoral success, Lance, is "fears of dark skinned immigrants". Nor does such a thing particularly loom large in the thoughts of most Brits. Illegal immigration is a bugbear, true, but that's not quite the same thing, is it?
Brexit has nothing whatsoever to do with immigration. It has a lot to do with an organisation which no longer resembles the organisation the UK joined, which is now overwhelmingly and stultifyingly hidebound by rules and regulations invented by unelected officials to the detriment of the people who happen to live within the EU. It has served its purpose and is now a monolith dedicated to inefficiency and jobs for the boys.
Just sayin'.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4386
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Funcke's ten year rule.

Post by ElectricMonk » Sat Sep 22, 2018 11:02 am

I hope that Funcke's rule still holds, but there are reason to assume it might not: the economic prosperity of a country, more than ever, depends on how its trading partners are doing: a recession can be imported, pushing your own cycle out of whack. Crises in far-away countries (like the war in Syria) can overload the system of migration to the point where normal assimilation seems impossible.
For the US, the Midterms and the 2020 election will show if the pendulum is swinging back or not.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11703
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Funcke's ten year rule.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Sep 22, 2018 9:38 pm

Poodle

As I understand it from my reading, the Europe refugee crisis, with large numbers coming from Africa and the Middle East, has been of concern to British voters, and the refugees who go to Europe first and then move on to Britain.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9769
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Funcke's ten year rule.

Post by Poodle » Sun Sep 23, 2018 6:44 am

It was, indeed, the case that uncontrolled (and, in fact, illegal) mass immigration into the EU brought about by Angela Merkel's ill-judged utterances which she had no right whatsoever to utter caused concern not only in the UK but in every other country in the EU, including Germany. This had nothing whatsoever to do with skin colour. The issue was that a politician within a single member country of the EU took upon herself the right to 'welcome' refugees into countries other than her own (please note where the borders of Germany actually are), thereby presenting a huge problem to the southern EU nations least able to deal with it. She then passed a large fraction of that problem onto France (and attempted to do it to Hungary, who closed their borders) who, in turn, made a concerted effort to pass it on to the UK. The UK applied its normal immigration procedures which, due to the numbers involved, resulted in a huge backlog. The immigration procedures were still ongoing when the FRENCH authorities decided to close all immigration camps in the vicinity of Calais (the departure point for the UK) and move the refugees on.
There is, indeed, a section of the UK electorate which tends to dislike anything and anyone markedly different in any way to themselves. There is such a section of the electorate in ALL countries, including NZ. It is not representative, it is not a majority - it is, indeed, not even large. But they have big mouths and make a lot of noise and are therefore darlings of the national and international press, and headlines come in large and bold type.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4386
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Funcke's ten year rule.

Post by ElectricMonk » Sun Sep 23, 2018 6:55 am

There are a number of things I don't agree with in your post, Poodle.

I think there is an obvious case to be made that Germany was merely following International Law, which requires every country to let migrants apply for asylum. It was most of the rest of Europe that broke the law by denying refugees from war-torn countries this basic right.
At no point did Merkel suggest that everyone would automatically be allowed to stay, or that those who were accepted would get an indefinite right to stay.

But it is true that Germany royally messed up coordinating with the rest of the EU, especially with the countries at the edges of Schengen.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9769
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Funcke's ten year rule.

Post by Poodle » Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:27 am

You're absolutely correct, EM. But a large proportion of the influx of people were economic migrants rather than refugees. Another large proportion were totally undeclared and therefore an immediate strain on the countries which were the main points of entry. And a point of fact - only some of the eastern European countries (relatively new EU entrants) put up physical barriers. Most of the rest of the EU (including the UK) dealt with the people as they arrived, most of them not having claimed refugee status. Even so, there were ridiculous cases such as the prominent case of the young man who claimed to be 16 and still at school when it was painfully obvious that he was, at least, in his 20s - and was accepted by the UK. (Similar examples ... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 64081.html)
What Merkel did, in effect, was declare it OK for unpleasant people to set up profitable enterprises which overloaded unsuitable boats to cross the Med. and resulted in the world-publicised image of the body of a small boy lying dead on a European beach. He was, of course, the tiny tip of a very large iceberg of dead people. In a nutshell, it was a complete and utter cock-up from beginning to end, and it was exacerbated by Angela Merkel, who had fallen for her own hype about being 'Mother' Europe.
You will note, I'm sure, that you cannot apply for refugee status (asylum) until you arrive in your target country. Usually, that would be the first country you get to which would not continue your persecution, Merkel, in effect, invited all of those people to keep walking. I know why she said that (the southern EU countries were in no state to handle that amount of people) but where were the trains and busses and ships from Germany? Nowhere to be seen.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4386
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Funcke's ten year rule.

Post by ElectricMonk » Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:47 am

The Schengen system had no provisions for mass-migration - which was a serious flaw that shouldn't have been overlooked (or actively ignored).
Additionally, Merkel is pretty much a unique case of politician in Europe, someone who came out of the repressive East German system highly scientifically educated and full of ideals; I'm not sure how aware she was of the masses of German refugees after WW2 seeking help to survive from people who themselves had next to nothing. But I know she must have thought about Soviet Block citizens, in particular East Germans, fleeing at great risk their countries in the hopes of a better life.
I'm guessing that it would never have crossed her mind that other European countries wouldn't, on average, feel the same - a potentially fatal miscalculation for a politician.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9769
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Funcke's ten year rule.

Post by Poodle » Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:01 am

I'm giving you the wrong impression, EM - probably Lance, too.
I'm not anti-immigrant (the UK has largely benefitted from immigration) and I'm certainly not anti-refugee. I AM anti political advantage games played with peoples' lives. More to the point, I'm anti-(slipping in an accusation of racism when it isn't even relevant).

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4386
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Funcke's ten year rule.

Post by ElectricMonk » Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:12 am

Sorry if I gave the impression that you are anti-immigration; I'm sure you are not.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned from the Refugee crisis, most of them involving how to communicate policy (and the need to actually have one).

All in all, I think that the EU will weather the storm of nationalist backlash and come out more resilient for it (which would be in line with the OP).

In the medium term, I am more concerned about Japan, which can no longer hide the issue of lack of care for the elderly due to lack of labor force due to lack of immigration due to massive nationalism.