Why doesn't Ireland have conservatives?

turgon

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This mannerism that people with such extreme opinions (like you) have of not addressing clear flaws in your ideology and policy, and instead ignoring these flaws and dismissing those who disagree, is why we have 53 million people dead in the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

stovelid

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Are you are making an obtuse point about the demise of the classical 'working class' as envisaged by Marx and others?

If not, the logical conclusion of this statement is that countries with so-called 'capitalist' economies do not have underclasses, that is: poverty and lack of access to health-care or education are unheard of in such countries.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So, under your system, would all land and wealth be divided up equally so that everyone would be free to become whatever they want? I find it hard to believe that a working class and management/business class would not emerge in your free market otherwise. In fact if you want to see a truly free market, look at Britain before Marxism existed. Nice place for workers wasn't it? Good, fair, equal society wasn't it?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I can see that. But how do you argue that free market capitalism leads to a classless society when it does anything but? If wealth is kept in the hands of a few, why would they allow workers to become like them?

Yet another one who wants to talk about 1848 instead of 2008....

You are the one that brought up the "truly capitalist system". What's changed in capitalism between 1848 and 2008, bar socialist/left leaning policies that benefit the workers, that makes a free market system better now than it was then?

stovelid

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The assertion that underclasses would not exist in a completely free market economy is ludicrous, although I suspect by saying they wouldn't exist, you really mean that they wouldn't be a problem, i.e. cared about.

There is probably a perfectly reason why nearly every political system (good or bad) has been realized at some stage, yet your free market system has never really existed, unless it was tempered with the 'socialistic' nostrums that you dislike so much.

The idea that anyone is free to become anything he or she wants is either the most cruel and naive thing I have ever read on this forum or I suspect (more likely) that what you just don't want to come out and say that the less well-off, old and sick are an impediment to business.

At least the Leninists you fulminate against had some kind of holistic vision for society as a whole, however horrible and warped it was. Your ideas are nothing more than truculence at the fact that you are forced to be a stakeholder in your society and contribute to those less well off than yourself.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

brianthebard wrote: »

What's changed in capitalism between 1848 and 2008, bar socialist/left leaning policies that benefit the workers, that makes a free market system better now than it was then?

A far better understanding of how the market works, a better understanding of human nature giving us more methods to design fair and efficient markets and avoid moral hazard etc and perhaps a more egalitarian starting point than the horrendous inequalities that dominated pre-"capitalist" Britain to the extent that they horribly warped the living standards of different classes in the 19th century? We've been, very slowly, rebalancing the system from the serf and feudal lord model of a few centuries ago, and honestly, modern capitalism in its many forms has been a lot more successful at raising living standards than any other economic system devised.

That said, capitalism can only be embedded into some form of State (anything from dictatorships to representative democracies), so what's really the question is not whether the market is good, because it can be, it's how best to harness the market and to what extent to intervene that is the question. People throwing out 19th century examples of the "evils of capitalism" are really missing the point, the evils of the 19th century weren't because of the market, they were because of the actions of the State at that time and how the market was intertwined with that State.

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I disagree. We have many varieties of capitalist economies with various approaches to how to regulate the market. There has to be some level of State involvement and State provision of services/goods in even the most minimalist conception of capitalism.

Have you read Olson's "Power and Prosperity" by the way? He makes a few interesting points on why the concept of State vs. Market misses the point and that we should be looking at State and Market systems since the two are symbiotic in many respects.

brianthebard

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And if this is the case, do we live in a meritocracy now? Surely the wealth of the few, by being taxed proportionately higher, can give opportunities to the many?

Well I don't have the space at this late hour to write a book-length treatise about how capitalism has evolved over the past century and a half. But it seems pretty absurd to argue that we'd still be back in the black filth of Dickens' factories if not for Karl Marx....

Really? So if there had been no socialism, no Adams and Marx and Engels and other people who cared about the treatment of workers, people who didn't agree with the way the free market treated workers, the free market, in its infinite wonder and splendour, would've seen it was mistreating its workers and corrected the problem all by itself? Oh save the treatise, you've convinced me... I think it is safe to assume, nah it is safe to state with confidence, that in countries where social policies have not been strong, where politicans have sought to follow the free market principles, there have been and continues to be abuses of the working class on a hourly basis. Postcolonial or third world nations who have been following the colonisers system show us every day what the realities of free market capitalism are.

brianthebard

nesf wrote: »

A far better understanding of how the market works, a better understanding of human nature giving us more methods to design fair and efficient markets and avoid moral hazard etc and perhaps a more egalitarian starting point than the horrendous inequalities that dominated pre-"capitalist" Britain to the extent that they horribly warped the living standards of different classes in the 19th century? We've been, very slowly, rebalancing the system from the serf and feudal lord model of a few centuries ago, and honestly, modern capitalism in its many forms has been a lot more successful at raising living standards than any other economic system devised.

What does a better understanding of human nature have to do with capitalism? These things are taught in schools and unis, not in the market. A better understanding of how the market works-shouldn't that be a given, if we are to continue with the same market system, that we will learn more about it? Avoiding moral hazard? How? By paying the workers a proper wage and giving them things like health benefit? Where did the impetus for such things come from I wonder? Was it possibly due to pressure from socialists and unions? The horrendous inequalities of the 19th century still exist for the majority of the world, and more people are living in poverty than ever before. Is this the victory of a better understood market?

That said, capitalism can only be embedded into some form of State (anything from dictatorships to representative democracies), so what's really the question is not whether the market is good, because it can be, it's how best to harness the market and to what extent to intervene that is the question. People throwing out 19th century examples of the "evils of capitalism" are really missing the point, the evils of the 19th century weren't because of the market, they were because of the actions of the State at that time and how the market was intertwined with that State.

Its not missing the point at all, laissez faire government was influenced by the free market of the time, and vice versa. Its not good enough to say that the state decides which way the market goes. They are embedded in each other.

nesf

brianthebard wrote: »

Postcolonial or third world nations who have been following the colonisers system show us every day what the realities of free market capitalism are.

No they show us how the free market does not function correctly if not supported by a strong and impartial legal system. The problems in those countries stem from their governments and legal systems. If legal protection is not in place, or a Government seeks only to enrich itself and its cronies then that will cause the misery of the people, not the economic system. The same logic can be applied to the abuses in communist regimes.

brianthebard

nesf wrote: »

No they show us how the free market does not function correctly if not supported by a strong and impartial legal system. The problems in those countries stem from their governments and legal systems. If legal protection is not in place, or a Government seeks only to enrich itself and its cronies then that will cause the misery of the people, not the economic system. The same logic can be applied to the abuses in communist regimes.

These government systems are the legacy of free market capitalism, there is no two ways about that. The colonisers believed in the righteousness of free market capitalism and imposed it on other nations. They are now living the capitalist dream. :rolleyes:

nesf

brianthebard wrote: »

What does a better understanding of human nature have to do with capitalism?

It affects market design and policy design which affects how effectively the State can get the desired results in a market economy. One of the key points being auction designs for maximising public return on leases on air space etc. Not that the advice is often follower or anything but it is there.

brianthebard wrote: »

A better understanding of how the market works-shouldn't that be a given, if we are to continue with the same market system, that we will learn more about it?

We don't have a market system, we've a system of markets each requiring different forms of regulation and intervention in order to function as efficiently as possible. Markets learn by making mistakes, look at the whole credit crunch and the flaws it highlighted in incentive structures and business models in modern finance, these flaws will be learned from and the market will come back stronger from it. There will be another crisis but next time, if the lessons are heeded, the problems won't stem from the same issues as the credit crunch, for historical reference look at the dot com bubble and its roots in accountancy practices. Since that crisis accountancy standards have tightened considerably and positive change has occurred to strengthen the system.

brianthebard wrote: »

Avoiding moral hazard? How? By paying the workers a proper wage and giving them things like health benefit? Where did the impetus for such things come from I wonder? Was it possibly due to pressure from socialists and unions? The horrendous inequalities of the 19th century still exist for the majority of the world, and more people are living in poverty than ever before. Is this the victory of a better understood market?

Eh, moral hazard has little to nothing to do with health benefit and proper wages.

To address the rest of it, seriously take a single look at India, China and most of South East Asia and tell me that things haven't improved for them versus the 19th century. There is a long way to go, and much of the Third World is in a terrible state but this isn't exactly easy to fix nor is it ever going to happen quickly. Countries need to build the internal structures to support a market before the benefits can accrue and unfortunately there is very little incentive for many of these country's leaders to stop enriching themselves and others and spend the money in a fashion that will benefit future generations.

brianthebard wrote: »

Its not missing the point at all, laissez faire government was influenced by the free market of the time, and vice versa. Its not good enough to say that the state decides which way the market goes. They are embedded in each other.

Sure but how then is 19th century Britain relevant to discussions of modern day capitalism given the vast differences in culture and State between then and now?

brianthebard wrote: »

These government systems are the legacy of free market capitalism, there is no two ways about that. The colonisers believed in the righteousness of free market capitalism and imposed it on other nations. They are now living the capitalist dream. :rolleyes:

They are legacies of colonialism and its evils, and not any particular economic system, there is no two ways about that.

brianthebard

nesf wrote: »

They are legacies of colonialism and its evils, and not any particular economic system, there is no two ways about that.

Colonialism was a political and economic system, inextricably linked. If you can't see that then there's no point answering the rest of your post. Clearly you don't want to admit that capitalism has been responsible for so much inequality and suffering in the world.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dirk Gently

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There is pretty much an entire continent (south america) in social revolution of varing degrees today. What many describe as populist governments are now in power off the back of extreme IMF policy which pretty much mirrored the effects your list would have on a society. Some of the new leaders promote left wing socialism, others promote a more western style of state intervention to soften the blow of capitalism on their people. States have taken back control of profitable industries especially energy in an effort to fund social programmes. This has happened because people were "left behind" by the free market and needed social reform.

It's all about balance. Naked free market economics without regulation via social backups creates inequalities too extreme to sustain itself and will inevitably lead to rejection, either through the ballot box or through industrial unrest, strikes, protests etc. In your head it might work but in practice such extreme economic conditions can only be maintained by a powerful state proping up questionable governments of smaller states and by using military and economic coeciron. Eventully that too can't sustin itself and the host country either reforms socially or fails to function except to serve as a source of cheap labour free from the social constraints which exist in exploiting country. In the host country the percentages of those with flushing toilets and big screen tv's would compare less favourably with your impressive stats.

daithicarr

donegalfella wrote: »

I'm hardly dreaming. Switzerland's population is less than twice Ireland's, and they seem to do okay with their own currency. You seem to forget that we once had our own currency, too. (It was called the punt, so as to rhyme with bank manager.)

quote]

Switzerlands population is nearly twice ours , its almost 8 million people, they are located in the center of europe beside large population centers and industrial hearlands, they have a long tradition of industry and banking.
Ireland has a small population on the periphery of europe, we dont have the natrual resources of Norway , our industries and businesses rely heavily on our access to the euopean market, without it much of the FDI you speak of would go somewhere else.

turgon

daithicarr wrote: »

Switzerlands population is nearly twice ours , its almost 8 million people, they are located in the center of europe beside large population centers and industrial hearlands, they have a long tradition of industry and banking.

Some people just dont get this. We only had our boom after we were in the EU and because we have access to common market. Trying to sell secession is about as pointless as wooing Kiera Knightly.

I dont think people are against capitalism. People are just against pure capitalism. Capitalism a lot of times widens gaps between rich and poor. For example a person born in a bad social housing scheme may not have parents that will tolerate him going to collage, so instead he will just get a job at 18 (or even younger) for the remainder of his life. He is not being given the equal opportunities that say I would. Your kind of capitalism would allow this inequality to widen. Government control is there to lessen the negative effects of a free market. For example providing education and grants.

What benefit, btw, will leaving the EU have?

And bringing back to punt? Having the Euro is sometimes purely practical. I went on holidays to Frankfurt at the weekend and had to pay nothing on stupid exchange transfers.

And finally. Supposing most people disagree with your proposals (as they seem to do). Would you be willing to implement them anyway despite such resistance?

spank_inferno

We may not yet have a conservative party because of the relative youth of our democracy.
We're only independent a little over 80 years. In generations to come the two main civil war parties, now 2 sides of the same coin could evolve to fit the normal Right/Left format they have elsewhere.

The smaller parties are already going some way to establishing this.
Though I think its only the PD's who are filling a defined niche being Irelands only Liberal party.

nesf

brianthebard wrote: »

Clearly you don't want to admit that capitalism has been responsible for so much inequality and suffering in the world.

Well, my view on this is that the free market is neutral, it is neither good nor evil and that the results of it (i.e. inequality and suffering) are dependent on its implementation and its regulation. If not regulated correctly then there free market economies can cause immense suffering and inequality. I'd view it more as the misguided, or deliberately unfair, implementations of capitalism have resulted in a lot of inequality and suffering in the world rather than tarring all flavours of capitalism with the same brush. I would apply the same logic to some implementations of socialism, i.e. I wouldn't tar all socialism because of what happened in the USSR.

brianthebard

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Nice to see that you can't answer the questions about free market capitalism from 160+ years ago. Also I've already brought up postcolonial nations such as India, in a modern day context, which you haven't addressed. Also interesting to see you measure progress and society solely in material terms. Not surprising of course, but very very monocular of you.

The Corinthian

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Of course tax cuts are balanced by spending cuts, however my point is that you've not made any attempt to balance the books when making your assumptions - a bit like the US Federal budget.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Unfortunately though you simply cannot avoid the fact that what you are proposing is from a social, rather than economic, perspective social Darwinism.

Meritocracy is both upwardly and downwardly mobile, and as such classes will develop even if you don't personally believe in them, and anyone born to a particular class will automatically bare an advantage or disadvantage according to it within the 'meritocracy'. After all, what percentage of 'middle class' children even apply to go to college, versus their 'working class' counterparts? As such human nature will conspire against your vision of pure meritocracy.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Speculative at best. Monetary policy is only one of the macroeconomic tools available to a government in it's management of an economy. Indeed, even Milton Friedman admitted late in his life that "the use of quantity of money as a target has not been a success. I'm not sure that I would as of today push it as hard as I once did".

donegalfella wrote: »

And your point is? Regardless of the EU's origins, the Irish people neither want nor need to be shoehorned into a European superstate.

Why is it that Americaphiles are always terrified of the spectre of a European superstate?

I'm hardly dreaming. Switzerland's population is less than twice Ireland's, and they seem to do okay with their own currency. You seem to forget that we once had our own currency, too. (It was called the punt, so as to rhyme with bank manager.)

So much for not suggesting that Ireland could become like Switzerland.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's a nice idea in theory (like Communism) but in practice it does not really work that way (again, like Communism).

Capitalism has it's limitations and flaws, just like any system. One of the major flaws is that it will gravitate towards oligopolies and monopolies - with AT&T and Standard Oil being two good examples of monopolies created by an unfettered Capitalist system.

Another problem is that you are relying upon the altruistic by-products for the good of Society. The paradox of everyone looking after themselves ending up being good for all is a fragile one, which cannot be counted upon, simply because it is a by-product rather than aim of the system.

donegalfella wrote: »

I have a degree in economics from an American university, which I paid for myself, thanks very much.

Critical analysis of comparative economic models appears not to have been covered as part of the curriculum.

Seriously though, I agree with many of your points and am certainly not an advocate of state control by any means. Indeed, a pure Capitalist system would suit me very well. However neither am I blind to its shortcomings.

I'm of the view that the flaw with those who would pursue an unfettered Capitalist system suffer the same flaw as those who pursue Socialism - looks good on paper, doesn't quite work that way in practice.

Just as Socialism erroneously believes the tabula rasa approach to 'equalizing' everyone will work, so does Capitalism erroneously believe that a perfect market can exist.

Both are theoretical pipe dreams.

ChocolateSauce

Regarding the OP, we don't have a designated conservative party for many reasons, one of which is that Ireland was profoundly conservative right up until the 70's. Conservatives only need their own party if there is liberal opposition.

Should there be one? I honestly think both FF and FG should disolve and re-form along different lines. At with least the PD's and labour you know where they stand or are likely to stand on various issues. FF and FG are the same for all intents an purposes, and whatever one does the other will condemn, economically at least. Socially, both are slaves to public opinion. I would favour a model with more parties and clearer distinctions between them.

nesf

The Corinthian wrote: »

Just as Socialism erroneously believes the tabula rasa approach to 'equalizing' everyone will work, so does Capitalism erroneously believe that a perfect market can exist.

Both are theoretical pipe dreams.

Well said.

jmayo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Have you ever been to Estonia ?

You mentioned Health insurance is there for those that get sick or have the bad luck to be insured etc.
What about those that are born disabled, they never get to work and thus have health insurance in the first place ?
Do you propose that they are disposed of or is it just tough lukc for their families who get no support to help them survive ?

I believe you mentioned somewhere along the line that we do not need a military, that all they are doing is guarding money convoys for banks.
One of your great ideals, Switzerland, actually has a huge military and everyone does national service. Why ?
Would you farm out security to some private organisation much like US is doing with such great success in Iraq ?
It also has been proven to be a great idea with British prisons :rolleyes:

I don't believe that a totally non state involved economy (as you propose), would ever work, just like a totally state involved economy (goog old communism) ever works.
As in most things in life you need balance and a happy medium.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So you admit that in capitalist societies various classes exist, and that capitalism does nothing to counter this? You believe its ok for some people to be poor cause they have a machine to wash their dishes?

No, I believe in democracy. The point would be to create a political party that would try to convince the population that these policies are in their best self-interest.

How are you going to convince people they should stay poor?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.