Why doesn't Ireland have conservatives?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

djpbarry

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But you are restricting immigration to college graduates only (I don’t see the logic in this), yes? So you could well end up with a labour shortage in the “unskilled sector” (not that everyone who didn’t go to college is unskilled). You have also made the point that employers who pay low wages will soon find themselves out-competed by other prospective employers; this implies that there are plenty of jobs for everyone. Why is this “free flow of labour” not filling these other vacant positions? Put simply, how can the number of workers in the economy always be exactly the right number required.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You think every foreign national would up and leave if there was no welfare state? You don’t think it’s reasonable to assume that many have settled here and they don’t really want to move? You think that maybe they might reasons other than welfare?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, first of all, I’d like to see a source for that statistic please.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I’m not sure what’s wrong with that? I don’t agree with your solution, therefore I’m wrong?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

A system that “works” is somewhat subjective, but anyway…

I never said I was totally against private health care; there’s nothing wrong with having a private-public mix.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Fair enough. I just feel it’s unnecessary for people to bring their qualifications into a discussion – it doesn’t lend any extra weight to their argument.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Again, educated/non-educated is somewhat subjective, but anyway, I think we need both, actually. I think a more important criterion is whether or not they are hard-working, which is obviously more difficult to gauge. After all, if they work hard, they can achieve anything, right? That is the basis for your “dynamic” economy, isn’t it?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What about those who cannot afford insurance? What about those who will never be able to work? Is it not fair to say that national social insurance programs for the disabled are the single most important form of disability insurance? Why would the private sector burden itself with it? Where’s the profit?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Please don’t assume that I have assumed anything.

Kama

Well, a 100 percent inheritance tax is basically communism, as you know.

No it's not, or you either have a very odd view of the definition of the word communism or are just using it as a rhetorical slur term. A 100% inheritance tax is quite coherent as a liberal-capitalist meritocratic policy, as it would ensure a equal starting point, equality of opportunity rather than outcome. Rawls and the Veil of Ignorance is worth looking at here.

Qualifications in economics reminds me of the studies done on the effects of studying economics on co-operation, charity, etc, which seems especially relevant when talking about political ideology, self-interest, and public policy.

Good writeup on here

More than one-third of the economists either refused to answer the question regarding what is fair, or gave very complex, uncodable responses. It seems that the meaning of ‘fairness’ in this context was somewhat alien for this group. Those who did respond were much more likely to say that little or no contribution was ‘fair.’ In addition, the economics graduate students were about half as likely as other subjects to indicate that they were ‘concerned with fairness’ in making their decisions.

What's interesting in the consequences here is that its not just inefficient but becomes immoral to compensate; 'its my money' and so on. A certain proportion of your individual productivity would seem to derive from social capital and infrastructure in your country, which you never produced. A degree of payback is hardly 'communism', its quite 'fair'. Emphasising the costs the State may impose on markets can systematically undervalue the benefits received, imo.

A consequence of the direction you advocate, I believe, would be an increase in social strife, both in implementation by welfare retrenchment and labour dispute, and downstream as a more unequal society with a necessarily greater punitive NightWatchman function, as can be seen in examples from the USA to Chicago-style Chile. 'Small government' often needs a larger nightstick; state retrenchment concentrates on the welfare rather than punitive functions.


You pays your money and you takes your chances; I personally prefer to mitigate the externality costs of capitalist market processes with a degree of socialism, on economic grounds as well as human equity. A certain amount of human sympathy, solidarity, and a concern with equity seem inbuilt to the species (most people behave 'irrationally' in ultimatum games, and will reject offers they consider 'unfair') whatever the theoretical market-human should or shouldn't do.

Grey is all theory, but green the tree of life...

The Corinthian

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If the cost of living was high enough, yes. €12,500 is a pretty good salary if you're living in Sarajevo, for example - try living on the same in Dublin.

Poverty is relative only in so far as it is reletive to income levels in any economy. The bottom 10% in the US may be earning the same as the middle classes in Thailand, but the question of whether they are better off really comes down to cost of living, which is a lot lower in the latter.

This is ultimately what we're discussing, that one is 'better off' poor in a capitalist economy than in a communist one - to which you gave little or no evidence for. In fact, your main argument for this appears to have been that the 'opportunity' alone makes it better, which really is dreadful nonsense.

So how do we ever address the problem of poverty, then? Again, this comes down to my dynamic, forward-looking solution vs. your static solution that refuses to acknowledge that the poor over time are becoming less impoverished due to the advantages of a capitalist system.

At no point what so ever have you come even close to demonstrating that the poor over time are becoming less impoverished due to the advantages of a capitalist system.

You have demonstrated that Capitalism gives an opportunity to the poor to become less so, but this is not the same as it being a workable opportunity in some cases or that people will take it up at all.

That's an absurd analogy. What I'm saying is that people who have the opportunity to work hard and better themselves in a thriving, dynamic economy are much better off than those who are kept in a state of dependency under a stagnant welfare state.

Not at all absurd. Freedom to pursue happiness is only one factor in well-being, and of little use if you can't avail of it or if you fail you starve.

And I'm sure you know enough about business to know that most do fail.

Well, a 100 percent inheritance tax is basically communism, as you know. So no, I don't advocate that.

You can't have attended many economics lectures, if that's how you define communism.

Actually, 100% inheritance tax would be one way of coming close to achieving a true meritocracy. After all, how has an individual who is living off an inherited trust fund living based on merit? They're produced nothing - no more than someone perennially on the Dole. The only reason they have it is by accident of birth.

Indeed you could expand the point to argue that you should enforce equal levels of education or ban nepotism so that everyone has the same opportunity to make something of themselves. And if they do, they can keep the fruits of their labour until they die and not pay a penny of tax.

So are you really talking about merit or you just want to spend your money as you see fit - they're not the same thing.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jmayo

Hang on there Donegalfella you are jumping to a mighty big conclusion that we, the Irish or at least the posters on this forum, have no problem with the way the government use our money. You assume that we are all happy with the overstaffed inefficient public sector because we do not agree with your very far right take on how things should be done.
That's a damm big assumption there.

I, and probably most other posters here, do think there are lots of problems with the health system, the welfare system, the public services in this country.
But do I think that most of them should be totally scrapped due to very low taxes, and then let some private company cherry pick the profitable services and just offer that ? NO.
Do I think that we should be screwed through the nose by some private sector companies to use what I believe is a national infrastructure for the benefit of all e.g water ? NO.

What does happen to the ones born disabled by the side of a road in your plans ?
What do you do with orphans ?
Maybe you do an IQ test and offer the bright ones a bank loan for their education and throw the not so bright ones in a workhouse of sorts?

Your philosophy seems to be based on the good old "American Dream" which at this stage a lot of people reckon is just that, a dream. If you work hard you will succeed, makes lots of money and then why should anyone dare take any of it off you.
Yes, that can work out great if you don't mind little or no holdiays and if you don't get sick. But if you do get sick you better make damm sure your health plan is a good one, otherwise you're screwed.

I am sorry but maybe if you are so disillusioned with the Irish system and with us contrary liberal/communist Irish, that don't see the error of our ways, rather than see your golden utopian free market economic marvel, then maybe you should stay in good old USA and vote for your fellow enlightened thinking friends in the republican party.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What about the question: "how can you be sure there will be Ferraris for everyone?" What makes jobs more like ice cream than luxury cars, in a free market analogy?

To argue that private insurers can't cover things such as disability, because there is no profit in it, fails to understand the whole concept of insurance.

The question I haven't seen answered is: what happens to people who can't afford insurance?

America's "poor" are among the top 10 percent worldwide when it comes to standard of living.

How do they compare to Canada's "poor"? To Scandinavia's "poor"?

I don't have a problem with foreign nationals or anyone else living in Ireland as long as they can make their own way. I do have a problem with people being here only so that they can leech off the welfare state.

Including Irish people?

Countering every free-market proposal with "What happens to someone who is born in a ditch in a field with no arms, no legs, no eyes, and half a brain?" doesn't lead to any coherent reasoning.

Refusing to answer questions like that doesn't exactly help either. When designing any system, you have to think about the edge and corner cases. If the system fails for those cases, the system is broken.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As I've said elsewhere, take it up on the Help Desk, and be prepared to offer compelling evidence that my moderating is politically motivated.

Iwasfrozen

Peronally, i like your points and would like to see a centre right wing party in Ireland.
But there is one point the confuses me.
How can leaving the eu be good for our business ?
that would take us out of the eu's free trade agreements.
Tariffs=Bad for business

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sink

hippiechickie wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I saw that statement too. I think all OB wants you to do as he has stated many times is to take moderation complaints to the relevant forum feedback for open debate or help desk for discussion only with mods/admin.

djpbarry

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Possibly because you won’t answer some of the questions that are being asked of you?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You have maintained that there will be jobs for everyone while at the same time maintaining that there will be no labour shortage. You have also maintained that if someone is not happy with their low wage, they can just get a job elsewhere.

I fail to see how all that adds up. It seems that jobs are created at will as they are required, as are workers.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I didn’t say ‘can’t’, I said ‘won’t’.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I’m afraid I’m going to need something more than an off-the-cuff remark in an interview. But, for arguments sake, suppose he’s right. So, how long has this been the case? Has the standard of maths teaching in this country suddenly nose-dived in the last number of years? I doubt it. The problem is (from personal experience of teaching maths) the students are just not interested and they are not putting the work in; simple as. And it’s not just maths; science subjects are taking a hit too. Have all the science teachers suddenly lost their qualifications?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I see. So, suppose a person, who is incapable of working (I don’t mean won’t work, I mean PHYSICALLY CANNOT WORK), is getting by entirely on state benefit; how exactly do they go about “weaning themselves off the nanny state”?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Presumably that would apply to all nationalities, including Irish?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh I’m sorry; was I picking at holes in your theory?

You came on here with what is essentially, an election manifesto, wondering why no political party had been established in Ireland to achieve your goals. Now you’re not only complaining that people don’t agree with your aims, but also that people are questioning the feasibility of your aims? What exactly did you expect?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sink

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Let me give it a try. First of all in the Irish/European spectrum I would be considered moderate right wing. In the US I would be considered moderately left wing. I largely subscribe to the new-liberal ideology. I believe in maximum individual freedom and as part of that freedom I would include

[*]freedom from abject poverty
[*]freedom from sickness and injury
[*]freedom to avail of a full education
[*]freedom of religion or lack of
[*]freedom in the market place (unless it impacts the freedoms above)
[*]freedom from excessive government control (unless it impacts the freedoms above)


On social issues I broadly follow secular humanist ethics and laws should be defined to protect the freedoms of others and not to be based on religious moral absolutes.

I am open to any mixture of government control/free market economics in so far that it satisfies the freedoms I have laid out. That would mean I support a free market in 90%+ areas of the economy. The only socialised areas should be those required to guarantee the above freedoms. Government should regulate the free market to ensure maximum competition and fairness.

I also am an anti-nationalist. I believe nation states are a primitive construct and have no determinable benefit in a globalised society. I support a world government which regulates interactions of local regional governments based on a principle of strict subsidiary. That also means I am for completely free trade and movement of capital and labour.

Obviously these are pretty lofty goals and I do not expect this could happen in my lifetime. It would take a century or more of slow steady progress to achieve my ideals but I am hopeful that one day they will be achieved.

sink

Forgot to add that obviously I do not think the government handled the economy well or invested revenue well or wisely.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

djpbarry

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I would say that you are the only voice upholding YOUR position.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This I would generally agree with. But, you want to impose migratory barriers, not remove them?

“… open immigration to any college graduate … ”

Remember?

donegalfella wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the director of the Irish Software Association is trying to mislead the public? Are you suggesting that he's propagating false statistics?

I’m saying I’d like to see where he got the statistic from.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Probably not; I think kids in Ireland are just going for the easier options to get the bare minimum of points necessary to get them into college. Like I said, I’ve first-hand experience of trying to encourage kids to do honours maths; the most common response I receive is “why? I’m doing <insert course here> in college; I don’t need maths.”

donegalfella wrote: »

Are you saying that we should just accept the fact that 40% of our Leaving Certificate candidates are so naturally uninterested or lazy that they can't do better than a "D" grade at pass level?

No, absolutely not – it’s quite a serious problem. But I think it’s all too easy to just blame the schools or, by extension, the government. Has anything really changed in the Irish education system in the last 10 years or so that would explain the recent poor performances in maths and science subjects? Nothing that I’m aware of, but I am open to correction.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Fair enough.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Hang on now; disability is an EVENTUALITY?

My question is basically this; if a child is born physically or mentally disabled, to such a degree that they will require constant care and attention, who is going to provide for them (assuming that their parents are not particularly wealthy)?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So why single out foreign nationals in the first place?

I’m not going to get into a discussion on the forum rules, but I would suggest you look at this.

The Corinthian

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Largely because you appear to be cherry picking those arguments you're willing to address, forcing others to repeat those you avoid. For example, suggesting the abolition of all taxation outside of a 100% inheritance tax would be in keeping with the meritocratic ideal you profess to espouse. Your only counter was that it was essentially Communism, which is a laughable cliché for someone who claims to have an education in economics.

As to some of your points:

America's "poor" are among the top 10 percent worldwide when it comes to standard of living.

You'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it, but I really would like to see some evidence of this claim. State involvement in this standard of living would also be of interest - or are you suggesting that rent control for low income families, which is not uncommon in parts of the US, is part of the free market economy?

Casting snide aspersions on someone's academic qualifications is not a legitimate form of argument. I mentioned having an economics degree only because several people in this thread have accused me of "knowing nothing" about economics. However, lines of argument that run "You can't have attended many economics lectures if you think blah blah blah...." are silly and petty. Some people think economic thought begins and ends with Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes—but it doesn't.

The problem is that you have repeatedly shown that you have at best a superficial understanding of economics - your suggestion that 100% inheritance tax being basically Communism is a case in point.

The study of economics does not begin and end with Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes, but it does include it, just as it includes the various approaches from Capitalism, Socialism (the planned economy, the Yugoslav model, etc) and should also include theoretical and no-longer existent systems such as Corporatism or Anarcho-capitalism.

Economics also is first and foremost a social science. There are no 'rules' in economics, only correlations. This is why economic theory is rewritten every few years - after all, stagflation didn't exist in economics before the 1970's.

Personally I support Laissez-faire capitalism, however, I am not so foolish as not to see it's limitations and flaws. You, on the other hand, seem to have completely failed to make any critical analysis of it, which is what leads me to believe that your training in economics is limited.

Countering every free-market proposal with "What happens to someone who is born in a ditch in a field with no arms, no legs, no eyes, and half a brain?" doesn't lead to any coherent reasoning.

Yet in any population such people do exist, as do others with other reasons that would cause them to be structurally unemployed and your response seems to be to ignore them as they are an inconvenient variable in your model. Unfortunately, when you don't take such variables into account you ultimately end up with a flawed model for any economy.

Finally, I think I've had my original question answered here. If this thread can be considered in any way a representative microcosm, free-market economics has little to no appeal for the Irish. Very few people here have objected in any way to handing over 41 percent of their incomes and paying 21 percent VAT—on top of hundreds of other taxes—to fund a large public sector.

Personally I object to handing over 41 percent of my income or paying 21% VAT (indeed, I object to VAT in principle). However, I am aware enough of the demographic spread not to assume that in a Darwinistic economy (which is what you propose) that everyone will build themselves a better life. They won't - and while it is easy to assume that those who don't have no one to blame but themselves, the reality is often quite different.

My primary objection to income tax is that it no longer fulfils the Hobbesian contract in many countries. I don't mind paying tax if I get some value for money and I also don't mind if some of my taxes goes to aid those who cannot help themselves (there but for Fortuna's good favour go us all), but I would agree that in much of Europe this contract is no longer working.

But I'm not so foolish as to go to the other extreme either.

irish_bob

The Corinthian wrote: »

Largely because you appear to be cherry picking those arguments you're willing to address, forcing others to repeat those you avoid. For example, suggesting the abolition of all taxation outside of a 100% inheritance tax would be in keeping with the meritocratic ideal you profess to espouse. Your only counter was that it was essentially Communism, which is a laughable cliché for someone who claims to have an education in economics.

As to some of your points:

You'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it, but I really would like to see some evidence of this claim. State involvement in this standard of living would also be of interest - or are you suggesting that rent control for low income families, which is not uncommon in parts of the US, is part of the free market economy?

The problem is that you have repeatedly shown that you have at best a superficial understanding of economics - your suggestion that 100% inheritance tax being basically Communism is a case in point.

The study of economics does not begin and end with Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes, but it does include it, just as it includes the various approaches from Capitalism, Socialism (the planned economy, the Yugoslav model, etc) and should also include theoretical and no-longer existent systems such as Corporatism or Anarcho-capitalism.

Economics also is first and foremost a social science. There are no 'rules' in economics, only correlations. This is why economic theory is rewritten every few years - after all, stagflation didn't exist in economics before the 1970's.

Personally I support Laissez-faire capitalism, however, I am not so foolish as not to see it's limitations and flaws. You, on the other hand, seem to have completely failed to make any critical analysis of it, which is what leads me to believe that your training in economics is limited.

Yet in any population such people do exist, as do others with other reasons that would cause them to be structurally unemployed and your response seems to be to ignore them as they are an inconvenient variable in your model. Unfortunately, when you don't take such variables into account you ultimately end up with a flawed model for any economy.

Personally I object to handing over 41 percent of my income or paying 21% VAT (indeed, I object to VAT in principle). However, I am aware enough of the demographic spread not to assume that in a Darwinistic economy (which is what you propose) that everyone will build themselves a better life. They won't - and while it is easy to assume that those who don't have no one to blame but themselves, the reality is often quite different.

My primary objection to income tax is that it no longer fulfils the Hobbesian contract in many countries. I don't mind paying tax if I get some value for money and I also don't mind if some of my taxes goes to aid those who cannot help themselves (there but for Fortuna's good favour go us all), but I would agree that in much of Europe this contract is no longer working.

But I'm not so foolish as to go to the other extreme either.

in my average joe non economic expert opinion , that was the best post so far in this thread

turgon

djpbarry wrote: »

My question is basically this; if a child is born physically or mentally disabled, to such a degree that they will require constant care and attention, who is going to provide for them (assuming that their parents are not particularly wealthy)?

+1

And considering that, in your perfect system, the only motivator is monetary gain, why would any profit-targeted organization offer such life-long disability insurance when such insurance is clearly going to be a monetary black hole?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You came on the Internet and began to give opinions and brought into the discussion that you had educational qualifications in economics, so I'm afraid you shouldn't whinge about how people are questioning what you yourself brought to the discussion.

If you don't understand why a confiscatory 100% inheritance tax implies eventual state ownership of all capital, resources, and industry—and thus communism—then I'll leave you to figure that one out on your own. Have fun!

State control or ownership alone does not Communism make, any more than private ownership alone defines laissez-faire capitalism - it is the fact that you made such a simplistic comparison that caused me to question the depth of your knowledge in economics.

When I suggested 100% inheritance tax replacing all other taxes, I was really testing your claims of seeking meritocracy - that people should make as much money as they like and keep it based upon their personal merit, and last time I looked, trust funds didn't fall into the whole meritocracy picture.

It would appear that your meritocracy argument was just a paper-thin moral justification then. Bottom line is you're just a social Darwinist - and only because you feel that it is to your personal advantage, no doubt.

Let them eat cake?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sorry, but the moment you raised it, presumably to re-enforce your academic authority, you lost the right not to be questioned.

Dictionary definition of communism: "a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs."

You'll note the second half of the definition that you've posted runs contrary to what I proffered, which was that one could earn and keep all they want and not simply according to their needs but could in fact amass supernormal profits.

You seem unaware that a 100% inheritance tax would cover more than just trust funds—it would also eventually confiscate all property, all publicly held stock, and all other privately held resources, and place them in the control of government bureaucrats. And that's your idea of a "fair" system?

Trust funds are simply one example of anti-meritocratic income. If you inherit a house, did you do so on merit? Or a percentage of a company? How fair is that?

Either you believe in meritocracy, in which case Capitalism fails to keep a level playing field in that it gives the offspring of the rich an advantage over those of the poor - or you don't, and as I said, I don't really believe you're a meritocrat.

And tell me, how would you deal with the problem that Capitalism tends towards monopolies in the long term?

These are all problems with Capitalism - not terminal ones, IMHO, but serious enough for one to not accept it as a solution to all Society's ills.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.