economic politics

joe freethinker · 19-03-2009 4:36pm #1

what dose it mean to be liberal/conservative on the economy and what are irish political parties like on the ecomomy???

Permabear · 19-03-2009 5:05pm

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep · 19-03-2009 5:21pm

For the record, in America liberals tends to mean left wing (more in line with social democratic outline that Donegalfella gave) although they're likely to still be on the right when compared to European politics.

Permabear · 19-03-2009 5:37pm

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep · 19-03-2009 11:06pm

There different types of libertarians though aren't there? You yourself seem to be of the anarcho capitalist bent whereas libertarians like Noam Chomsky would be vastly different (socialist libertarians), others are minarchists and believe in a state but a minimal one.

I'd forgotten how complicated political labels are:p

Permabear · 19-03-2009 11:13pm

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep · 20-03-2009 12:17pm

Ah yeah I get you.

I can see both sides of the argument. I'd imagine they champion positive liberty as opposed to your brand of negative liberty
(to clarify for others, negative liberty is not a bad thing, it just means freedom from restraint)

Although I do get a lot of accusations from some Labour members for being too libertarian due to my views on free speech, prostitution etc.

Permabear · 20-03-2009 1:01pm

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep · 20-03-2009 2:28pm

I'm no expert on libertarianism, I remember hearing something along the lines of there's no point being free if wage slavery takes away your liberty to freely enter work.

I'm not the best person to be defending positive libertarianism though, not something I know much about.

Fairly divided. Labour in NUIG is liberal enough on civil and political rights, but I got flak from other branches for suggesting prostitution be legalised (apparently a disgrace)/ defending David Irving coming to NUIG (one of the extreme left wingers in NUIG reported me to Labour head office)

Permabear · 20-03-2009 2:37pm

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep · 20-03-2009 2:42pm

I agree, that is the line I took as well as outlining for reasons such as protecting workers, regulating the trade, unionising prostitutes etc. Not so libertarian in those regards.

Same groups also blocked Bertie Ahern, dunno how much media attention that got.

Apparently those of us who defended free speech were a bunch of bourgois rich kids.

I agree, what he's saying is stupid but as Lipstadt said herself,

I just disagree with the concept of restricting free speech due to fear of it.

Permabear · 20-03-2009 4:22pm

This post has been deleted.

turgon · 20-03-2009 4:29pm

Theres a few concerns I have about economic libertarianism to the extent that donegalfella preaches it. I suppose I agree with "positive liberty" more than he does.

Free Education
I believe that all citizens should be entitled to free education to a certain level, Leaving Cert I suppose, and I believe this should compulsory. This will allow all citizens to receive further education or get jobs, whatever they wish. I also think education to this level should encompass a vast amount of sex/social education.

As regards third level, I would be in favour of a loan system like Australia. I dont think those who dont go to college should pay for those who do in competition.

Government Built Roads
I think the government is the best organization to build roads, primarily due to the ability to buy land so easily (even though in principle I hate the way they can). I dont see how roads could be operated by private companies.

All other transport should be privatized to facilitate competition. Those who dont use it shouldnt pay for those who do.

Healthcare
I had a car accident last year, and the one thing that reassured me was that, despite the fact that I had no health insurance and neither did my parents, I would still be able to recover fully without being completely bankrupted for a period of time. For example if I had insurance they would have charged my company €1,000+ for every 3 nights I stayed in hospital.

I think health is something that should be allowed to everyone, not simply those who can afford good insurance. Though one should always have the choice to use private healthcare if one can. We used to have private insurance when I was a kid, and I was born in a private hospital which apparently was a nicer experience for my mother than in public.

I suppose Im far more liberal on social issues than economic ones.Good article here on legalization of drugs:
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13237193&source=most_recommended
I know me and donegalfella have had a debate about this, although my view were a tad different then.

Lockstep · 20-03-2009 5:12pm

100% agree. Exact arguments I used.
Also spoke in favor of legalising drugs. Never used them (or prostitutes) but as you say, even from a utilitarian perspective, legalisation makes sense.

Very.
Bitching about Hitler while pissingon the notion of democracy.

Completely agree here.

Dob74 · 20-03-2009 5:28pm

Being Liberal on the economy means that you dont want regulation in the business world. Banks can lend any amount of money to anyone i.e. 50 million for an arce of land. It is similiar to the way the US stock market was run in the 1920's. FF,FG and the PD's all follow this line.

Liberal economics is like gambling. You may have a winning streak but it will all end in tears.

We all know how well it works on the way up.

It's a b;tch on the way way down. We are in for a ten year recession.:mad::mad::mad:

Permabear · 20-03-2009 5:47pm

This post has been deleted.

turgon · 20-03-2009 6:12pm

I see where you are coming from. Wouldn't it be hard for parents to decide what their children are good at at such an early age?

Do you think education should be solely to equip for jobs? I don't think so. I think society would be a well served with education about life, realistic education about condoms etc etc.

Also, if one type of school is more expensive than another, wont they just take the easy way out and send their child to the cheapest, even if it is unsuited?

I see. But wouldnt these tollers be able to charge whatever toll they want? Its not as if you can build two roads next to each other so as to facilitate competition?

And how would privatized roads work in relation to housing estates etc? Or main streets of towns?

I see where you are coming from, especcially in so far as everyone is paying for the insurance of those who dont have private insurance. But what about the the guy who cant get a job? Obviously when the libertarian policies are implemented we (:)) will have rightly culled the social welfare system down to the bear minimum necessary. Then the guy on the dole will not be able to afford health insurance?

I suppose you would get rid of the welfare state altogether? Its very bloated for sure, I applied for the dole last week (got a full time job since then though) and I would have been hauling in €200 a week even though I live with my parents still. This is ridiculous. But if there is no dole, what of the job seekers?

Permabear · 20-03-2009 7:04pm

This post has been deleted.

GuanYin · 20-03-2009 7:13pm

When nesf sees this thread, you'll all be sorry

Permabear · 21-03-2009 12:32pm

This post has been deleted.

edanto · 21-03-2009 4:38pm

Just to interject with a bit of a rant....

Political labels are inconvenient and lead to more confusion and argument than just discussing each issue on its merits.

Here's something that George Orwell wrote 50 odd years ago...
He's making a list of things to avoid when you are writing....
"Meaningless words. In certain kinds of writing, particularly in art criticism and literary criticism, it is normal to come across long passages which are almost completely lacking in meaning.† Words like romantic, plastic, values, human, dead, sentimental, natural, vitality, as used in art criticism, are strictly meaningless, in the sense that they not only do not point to any discoverable object, but are hardly ever expected to do so by the reader.

When one critic writes, "The outstanding feature of Mr. X's work is its living quality," while another writes, "The immediately striking thing about Mr. X's work is its peculiar deadness," the reader accepts this as a simple difference opinion. If words like black and white were involved, instead of the jargon words dead and living, he would see at once that language was being used in an improper way.

Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable." The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning.

Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Pétain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality."

There are hardly any significant differences between FF & FG when it comes to economic policy. Both say the same kind of wishy washy political nonsense-speak when it comes to commenting on economics.

Try to stay away from labels, they are not a handy shorthand, they are a confusing cloud that distracts from discussion.

turgon · 21-03-2009 5:19pm

Of course, but sometimes that interest is no visible at a young age; I only became interested in history in 4th year out of a lucky chance of really having to keep it on. I would be against specializing too early, which is what your system seems to do?

I know that, but without direct competition the size of toll would have to huge before detours would be even close to viable.

But will there always be a job for everyone?

I suppose it would be easier for you to say what parts of government you should keep, rather than those to be abolished? What about foreign affairs, justice and defense?

I disagree, if anything it simplifys the discussion as everyone knows broadly where others stand. George Orwell is a legend though

nesf · 21-03-2009 8:06pm

No it doesn't similar to how being a social democrat doesn't mean you want to see a Stalinist fully centralised system.

Positions on the liberal right are as varied as those on the left. Anyone painting you a single picture of the beliefs of either group is constructing a straw man to argue against rather than accurately assessing the issue.

nesf · 21-03-2009 8:07pm

Why so?

Indeed, I am. 61 years of waiting rewarded.

nesf · 21-03-2009 8:14pm

Except, we don't agree on what "little as possible" entails, what a "very small public sector" is in pragmatic terms, what "low taxes" means in terms of percentage rates etc. I'd have no problem with Government built networks such as the electricity line system, the railway network etc. Which DF would oppose me on.

DF is pretty much on the extreme right for a liberal (even in a US context!). I'd fall much closer to the centre even though I'd be to the right of the present Irish parties.

Permabear · 21-03-2009 11:22pm

This post has been deleted.

nesf · 22-03-2009 12:28am

Yup, while I would subscribe more to an "Olsonian" view where it's inevitable to have some group in control because anarchy is unstable. This means we're in a position of picking the least worst option, i.e. democracy or "benevolent" dictatorship. Depending on your starting point, both have positive attributes but in the end you need to transition to democracy in order to minimise transfers of wealth to a minority. i.e. minimise since it's impossible to realistically eliminate it.

Have you read Olson's "Power and Prosperity"? It's a flawed book (published posthumously before he submitted the final draft) but it's interesting nonetheless.

Permabear · 22-03-2009 10:40am

This post has been deleted.

nesf · 22-03-2009 2:25pm

Not really. It's more an argument over whether anarchocapitalism won't fall under the rule of dictators or oligarchs.

oscarBravo · 23-03-2009 12:40pm

What prevents all the road owners forming a cartel?

Permabear · 23-03-2009 2:47pm

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo · 23-03-2009 5:07pm

Of course - it negates the advantages of competition. Once all the "competitors" in a market have agreed to artificially inflate their prices, the consumer loses out. And you'd have to agree there's a pretty high barrier to entry in the road-building business.

Permabear · 23-03-2009 5:50pm

This post has been deleted.

nesf · 23-03-2009 5:52pm

Said Game Theory is based on models of human behaviour that have been routinely shown to not hold in research done in Experimental Economics. Also the evidence from the markets is that cartels can be remarkably stable things.

Permabear · 23-03-2009 6:03pm

This post has been deleted.

nesf · 23-03-2009 6:05pm

Ah, but just because there's a chance that cartels can sometimes do this is not justification for letting cartels form in general. If even one cartel out of a million acts in the interests of consumers then your last line holds but it doesn't make it attractive as an option.

Permabear · 23-03-2009 6:20pm

This post has been deleted.

DadaKopf · 23-03-2009 7:35pm

Evidence, please.

nesf · 23-03-2009 7:39pm

I wasn't suggesting one in a million as an accurate statistic. It was pointing out how thin the evidence could be and still hold up your conclusion.

Permabear · 23-03-2009 8:05pm

This post has been deleted.

nesf · 23-03-2009 9:09pm

Interesting paper, though it's really a question of cost-sharing vs price-fixing that he deals with.

The issue is this, in market with low barriers to entry cartels are highly unstable both in theory and practice. In markets with high barriers to entry this is not necessarily the outcome that one can expect. Monopoly profits will attract competition this is true but it is barriers to entry that say whether or not monopolies will be stable in a given market.

Permabear · 24-03-2009 10:54am

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo · 24-03-2009 11:10am

If the state doesn't, who will?

Permabear · 24-03-2009 11:13am

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo · 24-03-2009 11:20am

So you don't see any issue with a cartel of road owners making sure that there's a €50 toll to drive from Dublin to Cork?

Permabear · 24-03-2009 11:39am

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo · 24-03-2009 2:19pm

I'm not sure what's involved in road owners "cheating", but what's to stop the road owners and railroad owners forming an even bigger cartel?

The current road monopolist has a popular mandate and, at least in theory, has my interests at heart. A private road operator, by definition, has only one motive: profit maximisation.

I'm not defending our government's record of efficiency, by the way; I'm just challenging the idea that it's possible (or even desirable) to have a perfectly competitive market for roads.

Permabear · 24-03-2009 3:11pm

This post has been deleted.

Sand · 30-03-2009 9:03pm

True, but that could (would?) imply the road operator wants as many customers as possible which would further imply reasonable cost [ for the service offered], and at least a reasonable level of service offered [ fighting congestion for example]. Having profit maximisation as a goal doesnt imply negative outcomes by default.

State operators on the other hand have no interest in what happens to the road once its built, or if anyone uses it at all. Bridges to nowhere and so on.

Either way there is less chance of a private cartel than a public one.

That said, natural monopolies [ waterworks, power lines, telecommunications] such as infrastructure do tend to be better held in the hands of some neutral entity whose revenue is maximised by getting as many users of the infrastructure as possible - i.e. a telecommunications infrastructure monopoly whose revenue would be generated from "renting" their infrastructure to electricity companies and power stations - acting as the middle man between generation and the client facing entities. The state would tend to be the default choice for that role, but they usually also want to take over the market entirely in those cases and erradicate or greatly hinder the market and its benefits.

Belfast · 13-05-2009 1:49pm

liberal/conservative are labels and the policies behind those who claim to be liberal or conservative changes with the place and time.

I do not think political labels are a useful concept.

economic politics

Comments