Why doesn't Ireland have conservatives?

Permabear · 09-09-2008 11:19pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 09-09-2008 11:23pm

This post has been deleted.

sink · 09-09-2008 11:27pm

It would probably be quicker if the workers party got voted in to government in an absolute majority and after a few years the economy collapsed and had to be built from scratch.

I am a supporter of capitalism and I have no love for unions. But your views are a little too far to the right for me.

The economy could be improved to a greater degree if we just got rid of the over regulation in 'health and safety standards' and 'workers rights' as well as the overly biased courts towards employees in industrial disputes such as unfair dismissals. These reforms would also help the health and education sectors as it would be easier for the government to reform the sectors and sack under preforming teachers, doctors and nurses.

In short we need to chop the legs of the unions, not the arms off the social services.

Permabear · 09-09-2008 11:29pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 09-09-2008 11:33pm

This post has been deleted.

turgon · 09-09-2008 11:34pm

Do you have a lot of experience with people on the dole, or are you just drawing on theories created by some award winning economist/sociologist?

Let me re-phrase your sentence. "Well, I secretly acknowledge that you have found an error in my policies, but I am going to dismiss it with an unproven statement to which there is no evidence to back it up".

What does that matter?

Explain to me, I beg you, as to how there will always be jobs for every single person.

nesf · 10-09-2008 12:07am

In fairness you haven't been citing them, so you can't really argue that one in my opinion. That and a Nobel Prize in Economics doesn't necessarily make a person's economic opinions gospel. Friedman's work is not infallible etc.

They will also have far less baggage than we have, with our "cartels" of professionals etc. There's a few interesting economic experiments going on in Eastern Europe these days, including a single tax rate system in Estonia (I think) that bear watching over the coming decade.

oscarBravo · 10-09-2008 12:20am

I consider myself intelligent, (fairly) well educated, and particularly capable at what I do. I'm a business owner and manager. I should, in theory, be embracing his ideals: I'd be one of the winners.

Why don't I? Because those ideals are devoid of a social conscience.

As has been said earlier, a totally free market economy won't work for the same reason a totally centralised communist one won't: both are grounded in theory, where ceteris paribus is a caveat that's conveniently ignored. In the same way as diehard Marxists claim that communism has never been properly tried, it is claimed that a pure market economy could work if only governments would stop interfering with it.

As has also been said earlier, the natural result of a pure market economy is monopoly, with all the associated downsides. An idealised free market economy depends on perfect competition, which is unobtainable. The next best alternative is a regulated market, at which point the excuse of government "interference" in the market can already be heard.

Het-Field · 10-09-2008 12:31am

Fianna Fail are not a Liberal Party full stop. The likes of Mary Hanafin would certainly fit into the conservative Fianna Fail Wing.

Since the removal of McCreevy the Liberal Economics have been jettisoned. The Entrapreneur has not been given enough support, while the PDs were the only one beating the drum for these people.

Socially they are more conservative.

1.Remember that letter by the Wexford Senator and some FF backbench collegues condemning the publication of the heads of bill for Civil Partnerships ?

2.They wont touch abortion with a barge pole.

3.Brian Lenihan's measures on alcohol were very conservative and socially regressive. Shutting pubs and clubs earlier will only stimulate more drinking. Lenihan was also rabidly in favpur of clamping down on recreational cannabis users (iv never tried it, but cant condemn anybody for using it).

4.Do you remember when Bertie and Cowan jumped down Liz O Donnell's throat for arguing in favour of a separate Church and State ?

5.Noel O Flynn's comments in the Dail about immigrants were also fairly conservative.

Fine Gael are also very conservative. However, they would be more liberal on the economics the FF.

Their Social Conservativism is even worse then FF. The Boot Camp, The Drunk Tank etc uuuugh

Het-Field · 10-09-2008 12:34am

Educate yourself about Liberalism Man. There is more than just the American Lefty View which in some cases verges on communism. European Liberalism and Libertarianism are other style available to you.

irish_bob · 10-09-2008 10:59am

thats a really interesting and clever story except the moral of the story suggests that the democratic party in the usa are socilists , they may be socilistic compared to the republicans but only in so far as alaska is warm compared to siberia

nesf · 10-09-2008 11:14am

I don't disagree but similar to how some on the right tend to paint moves towards more socialism as moves towards communism, some on the left paint moves towards more capitalism as moves towards a totally ungoverned and unregulated market.

But, and it's a big but, most arguments for freer markets don't want to remove monopoly laws and anti-trust laws (or anti-cartel legislation etc) because both interfere with the market and prevent the market from working efficiently (I've never actually met someone who things removing such laws would be a good idea and I've met a fair few economically right wing people). Regulation is necessary for a well functioning market, even one with zero social conscience. No rational person wants a fully free, completely unregulated market. Our knowledge (theoretical and empirical) of markets has progressed to the point where we know this is just a bad idea. There are however a lot of open questions about where State monopoly is appropriate/desirable and to what extent the labour market etc should be regulated which is where the disagreements between the left and right start.

Kama · 10-09-2008 11:33am

Pedantic point: this is a determinist-teleological argument, from a free-market perspective, but essentially the same as old Marxist theories about historical inevitability. Never mind the asymptotic impossibility of a completely free market, and what that would mean, its stating that something necessarily must happen given state of affairs X.

Which to my mind smells a bit of faith, rather than evidence.

Quangos first please, then look at the unions.

We at least know what we pay the unions...

Kama · 10-09-2008 11:58am

On a more serious note, if you truly with to bring about your free-market utopia, might I suggest you ignore the systemic irrationalities of the electoral process and public, and the entrenched rigidities of the unions, and take the Chilean example seriously.

Pinochet accomplished considerable reform on these lines, and doubtless the ends is worth the means, with strong economic explansion, liberalization, and control of inflation. The consequences for the poor were slightly less exceptional than in your story, but doubtless this was due to residual government interference in the market...

SkepticOne · 10-09-2008 12:15pm

To be fair, I don't think donegalfella is advocating anything like the oppressive police state of Chile under Pinnochet. Small government and minimal interference does not mean anti-democratic government.

djpbarry · 10-09-2008 12:21pm

There will be a job for everyone? How? Will the number of jobs created each year be exactly equal to the number of school/college leavers plus immigrants, less the number of retirees?

Who provides the loan? What if the loan is not approved?

Why not?

You see, the problem with that analogy is that it is assumed that low-earners (of grades in the case of your story) are “slackers”. Everyone is not equal; some people have certain talents and aptitudes that others do not, but that does not necessarily mean that the talented work harder than the less talented.

I seem to recall somebody asking you where the disabled would fit-in in your economy; I could be wrong, but I don’t recall you providing an answer?

You can’t be serious?

Húrin · 10-09-2008 12:48pm

That's because Ireland has a completely different history to superpowers like France, Britain and America, which have the party system you describe. Our political make-up is still framed by the struggle for independence 90 years ago.

You don't know anything about economics. What would any of these 'initiatives' do against the rapidly rising price of oil - necessary to drive nearly all industrial development? Ireland is already one of the most prosperous countries in the world. I imagine you have been reading US Libertarian websites.

What's so socially liberal about restricting immigration to all but the upper classes of other countries?

Kama · 10-09-2008 1:44pm

In economic policy terms, he advocates something quite similar. Pinochet introduced Chicago School economics to Chile with the overthrow of Allende, and accomplished many of the goals Donegalfella outlined earlier. The social conflict that necessarily goes with this utopia-building exercise would be considerable, whether it 'works' or not in the end.

Is there a term for arguing like this, putting the blame on something that (conveniently) can't be eradicated? Been bugging me pretty bad the last while, its a widespread argumentative device...Shadowboxing?

The Corinthian · 10-09-2008 2:08pm

Poor in any Society means that your income is in one of the bottom demographic sections. Whether this is better off than someone in a corresponding section in another society or not is the comparison we are making. This is the only relative factor in poverty here.

As for being 'dynamic', this is complete rubbish. Being poor with hope of a better future is still being poor, no matter how you dress it up. You might as well argue that a poor man who buys a lotto ticket is better off than one who does not because he has the possibility of winning.

I missed this earlier post - where did it get it's facts from?

I would agree with this analysis on Africa, but this in no way takes away from my criticism of your arguments essentially boiling down to little more than social Darwinism.

What if he has no hands in which to hold the rod?

The problem with your philosophy is that it assumes that anyone can better themselves. Not always the case. And what of those who cannot (rather than choose not to)?

Here's one scenario if you truly believe in meritocracy. No income tax at all, but 100% inheritance tax instead.

SkepticOne · 10-09-2008 2:24pm

The impression I get is that what is being advocated is a party with basically a free market, small government ideology operating within the normal democratic framework. Within the democratic framework the people have to be convinced it is the right direction. I suppose the nearest example (though less radical) would be Britain under Thatcher.

SkepticOne · 10-09-2008 2:51pm

I think what donegalfella is looking for is politically unrealistic at present. In an earlier post I mentioned Thatcher, but the Tories only got in after Labour had brought Britain to its knees. The same has to happen in Ireland if anything like donegalfella's agenda is to happen.

I think the general sentiment in the country is heading leftwards at present rather than in the OP's direction due to economic uncertainty even though perhaps freer markets are probably the way to go in this competitive world.

turgon · 10-09-2008 3:21pm

I realize that donegalfella came on to Boards this morning but has not answered any posts. I beg him to answer two elementary questions that I have regarding his policies:

You state there will always be jobs for everyone. How is this so?
You ask for secession from the EU and change the currency back to punts. If so, why would companies want to base themselves in Ireland when we would be outside the main economic bloc of Europe, and our currency would be different, incurring them large transaction costs?

nesf · 10-09-2008 3:25pm

That's out of order to be honest. Badgering people for a response isn't very civil.

Dirk Gently · 10-09-2008 5:01pm

Yes, in relation to whatever percentage of long term recipients who are capable of working but chose not to despite the availability of a job. I don't know what percentage of dole recipients this applies to though and how much it costs the tax payer. A kick in the arse policy in this situation is welcome but I would imagine though even our current system is still better than what you propose. What you propose couldn't possibly work while at the same time taking away all other benefits at the same time. I was struggling to visualise what happens those unfortunate enough not be able to afford your utopia, that was until I seen you quoted by another poster when you said .....

Before this quote I couldn't figure it out. I wasn't sure if you were guaranteeing full employment or if you acknowledged that some / most / a percentage of people just wouldn't survive financially under your system. I didn't know what you planned to do with them apart from "nothing". I was thinking some form of mass human cryopreservation or some other grand scheme to make all the undesirables go away and with them goes too the slums and the crime and the anti social behaviour that comes with absolute poverty. Looks like some good old fashioned stadium round ups is what you had in mind though. I am disappointed, I really wanted it to be cryogenic stasis.

Permabear · 10-09-2008 6:34pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 10-09-2008 6:49pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 10-09-2008 6:56pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 10-09-2008 6:57pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 10-09-2008 7:04pm

This post has been deleted.

djpbarry · 10-09-2008 8:53pm

That is simply not possible. First of all, are you saying that everyone in the country is entitled to a job? Is it not something that should be earned? Secondly, are you saying that there will be more jobs than workers, i.e. a labour shortage?

Why single out foreign nationals?

Are the graduates themselves (and their parents) in no way responsible for that? After all, if people put the work in, they can get whatever they want, right? That’s the whole basis of your argument, wasn’t it?

No I don’t, but neither do I think our healthcare system should be privatised.

And I have an engineering degree; does that make my knowledge of the subject infallible?

Are there no uneducated people that work hard? Do all “educated” people work hard?

Oh and I'm still waiting for an explanation of what happens to disabled people in your economy?

Why doesn't Ireland have conservatives?

Comments