Why doesn't Ireland have conservatives?

Dirk Gently · 09-09-2008 3:54pm

by using tax payers money to employ an army of spin doctors of course :pac:

by comparing how well looked after those most vulnerable in society are and the chances they have of getting back on their feet and contributing to the ecomomy?

Permabear · 09-09-2008 3:59pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 09-09-2008 4:02pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 09-09-2008 4:11pm

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard · 09-09-2008 4:12pm

Who are the people who will get better jobs? Do you think they will come from perhaps the same background, with similar monetary situations? Do you think we could possibly "group" these people together, under a label of your choice? Would they then be above or below another group? What do you think the implications of these groupings would be? Tbh your position is laughable, you can't even admit that class would still exist in free market capitalism. At least have the balls to admit that capitalism leads to inequality.

The Corinthian · 09-09-2008 4:13pm

Not actually true in many cases. Your average citizen in the old DDR was relatively better off than your average trailer trash in the US - and much of what they do get is through the government intervention, seeing as even the US is not a purely capitalist system, you would abolish.

Not all people are naturally entrepreneurial - Irish or otherwise. It really is a silly thing to suggest.

Equalitas bona, non omnibus, after all...

Permabear · 09-09-2008 4:18pm

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard · 09-09-2008 4:20pm

I'm not a liberal thank you. And my position at the minute, is really about figuring out how you can claim capitalist societies are classless, and then turn around and show they are not. Btw the meritocracy you talk about is a common goal of socialism. Are you sure you are not a Leninist?

Permabear · 09-09-2008 4:28pm

This post has been deleted.

nesf · 09-09-2008 4:32pm

A more workable (but still problematic) definition of progress is looking at the median (not the average) person and look at how their life is versus the median in the previous generation or better still look at a sample of people from across the economy, it won't give a simple single number like the median will but it'll give a better idea of what's going on. Looking only at the worst off can give an overly pessimistic view of the economy as a whole, there will always be some at the bottom of the heap be it through addiction, bad luck or whatever and while every effort should be encouraged to help them, a more meaningful definition of progress will be one that takes into account the broader economy and the state of most people's lives. We still have drug addicts and homeless people in this country but the average person's life is a lot better than it was 50 years ago in terms of a myriad of measures from health and access to education to working conditions and material wealth.

Dirk Gently · 09-09-2008 4:37pm

not exactly, but by investing in education, health and services the government not only safe guards the future economy but also improves the standard of living and provides the first rung on the ladder towards a greater standard of living. I think that's more progressive than letting people rot deeper into oblivion, unable to contribute in any meaningful way. It's certainly more progressive than get sick and die or lose your job and starve.

Sure it's slow and not as efficient in the short term, but then again a dictatorship is also much more efficient than democracy at getting the job done. Doesn't make it the right choice though.

You measure progress through material gain, I measure it through management of wealth for the better of society, and I say that as someone who would benefit financially under your system.

edit: that was a reply to donegal ^^^^. Your point is well taken nesf, I was just offering donegal an alternative "yard stick" for measuring progress. He chose to look from the top, I chose the bottom.

nesf · 09-09-2008 4:39pm

Eh, was this in response to me?

Permabear · 09-09-2008 4:39pm

This post has been deleted.

djpbarry · 09-09-2008 4:40pm

You certainly do give the impression that you feel that anyone claiming any form of welfare payment is a "sponger", for want of a better expression.

That's just plain daft. What makes Irish people so wonderfully entrepreneurial, as opposed to say, Bolivians?

And as for those who are not blessed with smarts, talent or whatever? What of them?

The Corinthian · 09-09-2008 4:44pm

You stated that the "poor" in a capitalist society are often better off than the "equal" in a communist society. They scrambled over the the Berlin Wall for the opportunity not to be either "poor" or "equal" but rich - none of them did so because they wanted to be poor in the West (and indeed one gripe West Germans had was that they would get so many government handouts when they did defect).

The reality is that the "poor" in a capitalist society are in a pretty ****ty position and would be better off in a communist system (not any communist system as some are completely dysfunctional). Often the only reason that the "poor" in a capitalist society have anything at all thanks to state intervention rather than capitalism.

I think you fail to understand what I just pointed out to you. I do not deny that a certain percentage of the Irish (or any other nationality) are naturally entrepreneurial, or that this can be fostered in the right economic environment. However I said that "not all people are naturally entrepreneurial", indeed only a fraction of people ever are. Where does that leave the rest of the herd?

nesf · 09-09-2008 4:47pm

As employees in the companies created by the entrepreneurs strikes me as the obvious answer, I'm not sure if it's a good one though (since it implies that we have two classes of people, those who run companies and capture most of the profits and those who can't run them and are forever destined to work making money for someone else).

Permabear · 09-09-2008 4:50pm

This post has been deleted.

Dirk Gently · 09-09-2008 4:51pm

no it wasn't, see my edited post. You just happened to post right before I hit the reply button.

Iwasfrozen · 09-09-2008 4:53pm

Welcome to Capitalism.

Permabear · 09-09-2008 4:59pm

This post has been deleted.

Dirk Gently · 09-09-2008 5:01pm

I think you have a problem with waste and mis-management, as most reasonable people do. I don't think that health or education for profit is the answer though, although that does depend on how much access you want to give to such services. Inevitably there will be people unable to afford these private services, most likely the non unionised and out of work with no benefits in your economy. These people will stay uneducated and stay sick as they wont have the money or training necessary to do otherwise. They wont be very productive members of your economy. They will likely be a majority in your economy.

Permabear · 09-09-2008 5:01pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 09-09-2008 5:08pm

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard · 09-09-2008 5:21pm

Didn't you complain about using historical examples before? Is it ok to use them if they go back far enough? The class systems we are talking about are more embedded in society than every before.
I'm glad to see you are beginning to realise the mistakes in your theory though.

All of them? Castro for one.

nesf · 09-09-2008 5:22pm

Is it Marxist? It's not necessarily a pessimistic view. In exchange for stability and less exposure to risk by being an employee the person captures less of the value of their labour, in exchange for accepting a much higher degree of risk, as well as putting their own money and not just their labour into the project, the entrepreneur can potentially capture a much higher proportion of their labour and that of others. The stock exchange is just an extension of this basic risk/reward division.

I'm more curious as to whether it makes sense to think of some people as entrepreneurial in an innate way or whether they are simply a product of a person being presented with the right combination of market conditions, opportunity and desire with a fair degree of luck separating the successful from the majority who fail within a few years. That's more of a philosophical point though.

Permabear · 09-09-2008 5:27pm

This post has been deleted.

daithicarr · 09-09-2008 5:31pm

brianthebard · 09-09-2008 5:31pm

I'm sure that its nothing like that, but avoid the questions by all means.

Glad you agree. Or at least can't argue that he isn't. What other nations do we know of that imprison and torture people they disagree with?

Permabear · 09-09-2008 5:32pm

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian · 09-09-2008 5:37pm

Straw man argument. We're not discussing those who are or become better off, we're discussing the poor, those at the bottom of the ladder. Please stick to the point you raised rather than the one you wish to change it to.

Don't confuse recognising the bottom 10% with vilifying the efforts of the top 10%. Seemingly you wish to ignore the bottom 10%, but in a healthy Society you realistically cannot ignore them any more than the top 10%.

Why doesn't Ireland have conservatives?

Comments