Why doesn't Ireland have conservatives?

Dirk Gently · 09-09-2008 5:42pm

so we're back to charity / voluntary tax / Vincent de paul? Will this be a policy or something former students may or may not do. Uncertainty is not good for business. In the mean time, while waiting for a hand out that may or may not come, people continue to be excluded? Will primary education be public or private because without a primary or secondary education it will be hard to meet the criteria for higher level degrees. Will the scholarship scheme apply to 4 year olds starting their first day in school. Never mind breaking a cycle of poverty, what you propose initiates the process in the first place.

Permabear · 09-09-2008 5:43pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 09-09-2008 5:49pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 09-09-2008 6:02pm

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian · 09-09-2008 6:09pm

Your dynamic argument is a fantasy. It suggests that the poor in capitalist societies are better because they 'could' be better. The poor are poor by definition - that is who this argument is centred upon - the actual poor - not upon those who were once poor or the theoretical opportunities for those who are.

I've not suggested that hand outs are a solution to poverty. In fact I don't think they are. However your argument is that the poor can stop being poor if they choose to and if not it's their own fault. In theory that works, in practice it's a simplistic assumption - just as simplistic as the socialist view that everyone will be happy remaining equal.

nesf · 09-09-2008 6:19pm

Purely speculatively, you could divide them fairly accurately into potential owners and workers by looking at their appetite for risk*. Being willing to take risks is necessary (but not sufficient) for entrepreneurship, giving you a simplistic way to divide people into "owners" and "workers" without it being what most would consider a Marxist analysis.

*I'm not arguing that this is empirically the case, it's just a thought experiment.

Permabear · 09-09-2008 6:21pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 09-09-2008 6:26pm

This post has been deleted.

Dirk Gently · 09-09-2008 6:38pm

So you're taxed 10%. You retain 90%. but out of that 90% you now have to pay for school, education, basic services.

Alternatively a low paid worker, taxed at 20% gets all of the above free of charge or for discounted / token fees.

Can you guarantee that he will spend less than 10% of his wages on all of the above? otherwise a low paid worker is better off paying the 20% tax rate and getting the above for free. more money in his pocket to invest / spend in the economy.

Can you guarantee that private education would even be achievable if a low paid worker gave all his 90% wages towards the fees? Remember he has no union in your economy and his employer can pretty much pay him one euro an hour if he chooses. He has no choice but to accept one euro an hour because he will receive absolutely nothing if he is out of work. His wife fell at work and now has a slipped disc in her back. She is at home in bed and receives no out of work benefit. He can't afford surgery or even painkillers for his wife. How does he educate his child and get medical treatment for his wife?

It costs €2000 for his childs first year in school. It costs €20,000 to sort his wife out. He earns x amount taxed at 10%. Can you guarantee x will cover his needs, including mortgage / rent / food etc. What happens if he himself loses his job. I mean literally, what happens him, his 4 year old daughter and his injured wife? Where do they live, how do they survive, bearing in mind their are no social programmes, state funded accommodation, no access to hospitals or schools?

You see right now, x less 20% guarantees this mans family will be educated and receive medical treatment. They might have to put up in a hostel b&b or state subsidised flat for a while but they will have a roof over their head and access to the tools they need to recover and be ready to return to work when the opportunity arises.

I'm assuming in your economy there wont be any regulation of private services to keep them affordable, nor will there be minimum wage laws or full employment?

oscarBravo · 09-09-2008 6:42pm

Have you been to Chile lately? You are aware that they currently have a socialist president?

Permabear · 09-09-2008 7:13pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 09-09-2008 7:18pm

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo · 09-09-2008 7:26pm

Are you saying she's not socialist?

And yet, you're talking about Chile now. Basically, you're saying that the current state of the Chilean economy has everything to do with market reforms thirty years ago, and nothing to do with the current regime.

As for the question about whether you've been there, I was curious to know whether you had actually seen the living conditions of the average Chilean, before holding it up as a shining example of a capitalist success story.

Permabear · 09-09-2008 7:40pm

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo · 09-09-2008 7:48pm

Interesting - since that eminently sensible policy (combining free market capitalism with a socialist welfare state) is precisely what you've spent this entire thread decrying.

The Irish economy is undergoing a significant downturn. Is that entirely a function of 1980s reforms, or could it have anything to do with current policies and conditions?

No, it's not.

And yet, a substantial percentage of Chileans live in tin-roofed shacks and barely eke out a subsistence livelihood. Many are able to move into somewhat better constructed homes through social programs. It seems to be your position that they would be better off without such programs, and waiting for the benefit of a free market to trickle down to them. I wonder how many of them would agree.

Permabear · 09-09-2008 7:58pm

This post has been deleted.

nesf · 09-09-2008 8:07pm

Usually behaving like Labour in this country and couching their embrace of the market in democratic socialist language. Labour were trying to make tax cuts sound like a Marxist policy in the last election etc.

Well, in fairness there's a whole lot of difference between the mix of market and State that a "socialist" wants and that a "free market" supporter wants. There's a fair disagreement in the approaches of Ireland and France etc. He's really been arguing for an extreme flavour of this mix with the absolute smallest welfare state, scaling it down as the market takes up the slack rather than arguing that the mix is wrong even when his language might have suggested otherwise from what I can work out.

Permabear · 09-09-2008 8:24pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 09-09-2008 8:30pm

This post has been deleted.

Dirk Gently · 09-09-2008 8:34pm

It's not free, he pays 20% tax. His health care isn't that efficient but it exists and the hospital wont try find some contractual clause to get out of treating him.

Sure, but they do have to compete with unionised places of employment to attract workers. Remove this competition and... ? alternatively, when there is an excess of workers and not enough jobs what prevents supply and demand dictating a one euro an hour rate.

So all employers offer private insurance as a perk of the job in your economy, or is it an optional pay monthly subscription?

So rural areas don't get any bus services, hospitals are built only in cities and taxis charge the patient a fortune to drive 150km to the hospital.

I work in the private sector. I'm in a position of responsibility in the company. We were doing quiet well, provided an excellent service and had a highly skilled and motivated workforce. The owner of the company, recently decided to cut out the "waste". He cut staff, cut corners and over worked the remaining workers. He hired one cheap worker for every 2 of the skilled workers he let go, slashing the wage bill dramatically and for the first few weeks his turn over was greatly increased.

The problem though is that the new low paid, unskilled, unmotivated workers are too inexperienced to do the job. They don't much care about the company. They are in fact a danger to themselves and others due to the nature of the work they do. They have cost the company more money through carelessness than the cost of the original workers wages. The remaining workers are disillusioned and generally in the process of finding ways out of the company. Our service is really bad compared to our previous standards. Clients realise this, they are not happy and they are using us less. Those of us who remain find ourselves stressed, working longer and not being rewarded for our time or efforts. I myself have withdrawn from the day to day running of the place, as has my colleague. Now we simply turn up and switch off. Our hands are pretty much tied as the owner leaves us no room to manoeuvre. We've both applied for other jobs and are both working on solo projects too.

Myself and my colleague worked very hard over the past couple of years, transforming it from a small inefficient company barely breaking even into an efficient capable and awarding winning company which provided a very good service. We generated more business, generated and more employment. We done it by providing training for the staff, something they didn't have before. This cost money and was a short term loss. We provided extra services at no extra cost. this was a short term loss. We hired responsible staff who were right for the job, changing the old recruiting practice of hiring whoever put the lowest wage figure on the table in the interview. This again was a short term loss. But because we made the investment in people and training we soon had a whole new improved company which got noticed and got contracts and grew and became respected and profitable.

The workers is what made our company what it was. They were happy, confident, productive and more than willing to cover shifts, stay late or do extra duties. Now people arrive late, take time off and don't really do a whole lot when they are in. I can't convince the owner to invest in the workers, invest in training or invest in equipment. He cannot see the wood from the trees. As a result the public and our client companies are getting an all together worse service than they were getting before when we were investing in training and looking after the workers. There is an attitude now of doing as little as possible.

You might say that the owner of my company is misguided and blinded by short term gains at the expense of the long term viability of his company and you would be right to say that. Sometimes what might seem like waste is actually the very thing that safeguards your company and your profits. Likewise, social programmes might seem like waste but ultimately they protect society and the economy from a much worse fate. Are you sure your theory is not just a knee jerk reaction, a short term gain which will turn into a long term loss.

Permabear · 09-09-2008 8:48pm

This post has been deleted.

Dirk Gently · 09-09-2008 9:23pm

I agree about the dole lifestyle being all of those things, but when the dole becomes a lifestyle then it has failed. Realistically you don't really offer an alternative. Your alternative is literally nothing. If one million people are on the dole and there are no jobs available what are those one million people going to do without dole. Do you think "nothing" will motivate a higher percentage to find work again than an allowance and training would? I still don't understand how people out of work in your economy get themselves "educated, responsible, and hard-working" when there is no work available? Even educated responsible and hard working people fall victim to folding companies and failed business plans. No matter what way you look at it you need a safety net, your problem should be with how efficient and productive that safety net is. How can it be improved, how can we make it more worthwhile for the single parent to work and pay childcare instead of taking the dole? She needs to look after herself and the child. She wants to do it through working but she gets paid 300 euro a week in work and it costs that to pay for childcare. what's she gonna do? What would you or anyone else do? Will your economy solve that problem or make it worse?

Think of it as a business. You need to prepare and retrain these people to meet the needs of a changing economy. If your economy is to succeed you can't afford to have one million people not buying goods, not paying rent and not spending money. Even without giving them any allowance they still wont be doing any of these things. You're fast tracking the collapse of your economy. If the safety net is broke then fix it but you can't take it away.

How do you avoid all the things you mention, crime, anti social behaviour, drugs especially, alcoholism etc if there are no jobs and also no support for those unemployed?

Edit: In fairness to the OP I re-read your list on the first page again and you don't quiet advocate the elimination of dole payments. You want a 33% cut and limited to 6 months. Again though, what happens after 6 months of reduced dole and the complete elimination of all other benefits in an economy which is now privatised, including health and education? It's too "one size fits all" and damn those of you who don't make it. How do you weed out those abusing the system and those genuinely requiring more than 6 months to find employment.

SlabMurphy · 09-09-2008 10:04pm

Well if McDowell, Harney and co. aren't conservatives - what the hell are :rolleyes: ??

oscarBravo · 09-09-2008 10:26pm

Why? What percentage would convince you that I have a point?

You already have. Instead, why don't I comment on how the standard of living in Chile compares to the standard of living in Scandinavian countries, which have high-tax, welfare-state economies?

Taxpayers.

oscarBravo · 09-09-2008 10:28pm

My issue is that it's being offered as a panacea, with nothing other than vague economic theory to suggest that it will work. The closest country that I can think of to the ideal that's being proposed here is the US, which is a country I sure as hell wouldn't want to be poor in - much less poor, unemployed and sick.

REDZ · 09-09-2008 10:31pm

what a very fair and ideologically unbiased view, you should start a blog!
Just one thing, if we left the EU, why would we get any FDI? we are a pretty small market after all.

nesf · 09-09-2008 10:51pm

The theory isn't really that vague, it will "work" in that lower taxes and lower welfare will boost employment and create incentives for people to work. The thing is whether the social costs are acceptable, which is where reality bites and people start dividing into camps. It's easy for someone who is intelligent, well educated (in the broad sense) or particularly capable at what they do to favour more capitalism because they are the kinds of people who can thrive in such an environment and who'll pay the highest costs in lost opportunity in a more socialist system that will redistribute more of the wealth they can generate for themselves or trap them in organised pay increases where they lose out because if assessed individually they'd be worth more than many of their co-workers. The opposite applies to people who aren't particularly intelligent, educated or capable, these people benefit most in a world where union negotiated pay deals make sure they get their year on year increase without having to be particularly good at what they do.

Personally I think he's downplaying the problems of transition too much, market reactions, especially labour ones, can be problematically sluggish even with the best designed policies. Getting from a high tax, big Government economy to a low tax, small Government economy is a work of a generation to be honest and while it might be easy to argue on paper, real economies going through that transition will bring all the baggage from the old one with them and all the old cartels, pressure groups and organised stakeholders will be working extremely hard in that transition to maintain a hold on what they have now in the proposed system.

turgon · 09-09-2008 11:01pm

The people who are well off and who can afford to give some of their excess with a view to substantially improving the basic aspects of other peoples lives. I dont expect you to understand - human compassion doesnt appear to be a strong point of you policies.

GDP doesnt really prove much: Its an average. It doesnt take into account the poverty gap: maybe if you could provide us with standard deviation charts you could prove something and not try to score cheap shots.

I think donegalfella is under the illusion that people like micheal o leary would give up all their money for that kind of thing.

Permabear · 09-09-2008 11:06pm

This post has been deleted.

turgon · 09-09-2008 11:14pm

Theories are great and all, but in practice is where its at. Communism is a great idea in theory. 53 million dead in the Soviet Union would compel me to state that in practice it can be pretty disastrous.

Why doesn't Ireland have conservatives?

Comments