Why doesn't Ireland have conservatives?

james80000 · 12-09-2008 7:04pm

this thread is fantastic and fair play to the broad opinions held by people.
donegalfella, i understand all your points but unfortunately disagree with most of your points- not through moral outrage but through economics. although of course i agree that the government has wasted money and the public service is bloated beyond belief.

firstly, a corporate tax rate of 2% would be nonsense- everyone would register themselves as companies and "consult" for other big organisations. it would change the face of the labour market and I can think of no argument for the better. Having the lowest tax rate in your trade bloc is really the only thing that matters (and this only maintainable in the short-medium term). The key really is building long term competitiveness- through wage restraint, infrastructure provision etc. - in the long term this is what matters more to the companies we would like to hang on to, because we can't expect to maintain the cost advantages as our standard of living rises.

Immigration for only college graduates? Perhaps but the equity issue (economic policy is about balancing efficiency and equity don't forget) of only accepting those who make a better economic contribution into our society is troubling for most people I would imagine. Are we trying to create a state where we only accept college graduates? who would do the lower paid jobs? we would soon run into a situation of xenophobia (much as in 1930s Germany where the Jews were blamed for everything because they were successful). Even if the Irish people were completely fine with a pluralist and multicultural society (which, as shown by recent poll results, is not the case), the argument benefits only Ireland and unfortunately you would be extracting the most valuable contributors to economic life from countries in Sub-Saharan Africa etc. where they are desperately in need of these people.

Education provided completely privately? This, I think, is your most redundant idea. Third level education yes (the problem in Ireland, and the States, is that it the financing options are not there for students. Some sort of quasi-loan system may work well, but financial institutions simply do not provide them here). The reason I advocate third-level fees in some form are because the education at third level is proven to benefit the individual more than the society as a whole. However, one cannot really quantify this and I suspect the provision of free third level education has led to a higher supply of educated, skilled graduates -encouraging FDI firms to locate here.
However, secondary schools, such as those privately run in Dublin etc. (like it or not) only widen the gap between rich and poor. Not only that, but it means your parents are the sole determinant of your quality of education! It a crazy idea- and although it may create more "efficiency" it does not mean that equality of opportunity is something that should sacrificed (surely the basis of the free market).

leaving the EU is a matter of opinion- whether it would be beneficial to Ireland to regain control over its monetary policy, law etc. can be argued pretty effectively on both sides. However, I believe now all we have taken from the Union should not be thrown back in their face- perhaps we could be a 'net contributor' for a while and help build up the economies of Latvia, Cyprus and Bulgaria. We certainly needed it, our own government was failing and the helping hand played a part in our development. Time to give something back? I know this is a matter of opinion but the EU is not merely a theoretical argument- it should be framed in the circumstance of where we are now.

flat tax rate- good idea and perhaps actually benefits ALL citizens more than we think. the poorest pay 10% of their income as do the richest (as should corporations!) work and enterprise are encouraged. this would prevent all the tax accountants finding ways for people like Bono to pay less than 2% tax so I accept your argument here. I reckon 15-18% may be a more realistic number tho to keep the State going.

an end to unions and crippling wage agreements- economically definitely! not sure how it could be implemented tho or whether the benefit would outweigh the risk of exploitation. Definitely advocate the end of wage agreements tho.

can you really be serious about making people provide for disability? i feel that your economic logic is sometimes wayyy too pure, has no grounds in reality and would see many people who are "myopic (not that I believe this to be the right word!)" to be punished severly. Those born with disabilities should be provided for by the State- their opportunity was never equal (again, the fundamental premise of a free market) and it is unrealistic and unfair to expect families to provide for these high costs.

privatisation of health care? the USA has the most expensive healthcare in the whole world. It is obscene and fails miserably. Britain spends roughly 7% of their GDP on the health service, with Americans spending nearly 20%! Ireland, is somewhere in the middle - reflecting the middle (ineffective) ground that we have taken on the issue. Not only that, but all Britons have equal access to care, americans must take out health insurance- those who fail to think far ahead are left to die. It is no coincidence that the states are moving to the compulsory purchase of health insurance- people do not value such a brutal system!

There are two points about economics I would like to make. Firstly, the people do not exist to serve the economy- the economy exists to serve the people. Secondly, economics is about choices as well as efficiency. The reason your reforms would not work is due to people valuing certain ideals above the pursuit of tiny economic advantages. Standard of living and economic welfare are not the same thing (altho they are linked). It is why the boston/berlin debate still goes on

Permabear · 12-09-2008 7:46pm

This post has been deleted.

james80000 · 12-09-2008 9:45pm

turgon · 12-09-2008 10:02pm

Historically people born with disabilities such as Spina Bifida and Down Syndrome would have dies due to natural selection, I would imagine, or dies extremely young due to lack of care. I dont think the past is the way to go on this issue.

Permabear · 12-09-2008 10:58pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 12-09-2008 11:03pm

This post has been deleted.

sink · 12-09-2008 11:47pm

But you're not guaranteeing them access to treatment! You seem to ignore the fact that many people will not buy health insurance or that insurance companies in a fully private system always try to find ways out of spending money on preventative treatment. If a child is borne with a debilitating/life threatening condition and it's parents were not responsible enough to buy health insurance that child might as well be put down because it's just going to have a very short life of constant suffering. Or that insurance companies in certain circumstances will not provide 'experimental' treatment in order to cut costs even when that treatment is known to work effectively. I'm sorry but your system just doesn't cover enough contingencies and will lead to strife for many, many people.

Permabear · 13-09-2008 12:15am

This post has been deleted.

Affable · 13-09-2008 12:35am

So you're saying the Irish are socially conservative and economically leftist? If so, they have things entirely the wrong way around.

Regards the OP-maybe the Irish are 'left wing' because countries that suffered oppression or fighting against something tend to empathise with the underdog more, hence empathise with the underdog in society?

irish_bob · 13-09-2008 9:58am

back to the original question , i believe we dont have a truly conservative party in this country because we as a people are very centrists in outlook and charechter , we dont like absolutism , we pefer to sit on the fence , we perfer to run with the foxes and hunt with the hounds , its no wonder most parties in this country are so of the centre , there a white line in the middle of the road , its no wonder bertie aherne was so popular for so long
true conservatives see things in black and white where as irish people see many shades of grey , i for one believe that its a catholic thing in many ways

Permabear · 13-09-2008 4:06pm

This post has been deleted.

Kama · 13-09-2008 8:11pm

Which begs the question of what percent of ones income being 'confiscated' would not be coercive? I'm presuming taxation in and of itself is a confiscatory coercive assault on the liberty of individuals, and the aim is Grover-Norquist style to shrink a state small enough to drown in the bathtub; starting with the redistributive and welfare functions of the state, of course.

Now, if the 'baby' of the state was just that, the hungry parasite feeding off the market/individuals, maybe this would work. But the 'baby' is probably more of a siamese twin, or a symbiote, than that; states and markets are thoroughly enmeshed, in obligate mutual dependence, and have been throughout the entirety of capitalist development; if not a happy marriage, its a longstanding and functional one which is unlikely to end.

nesf · 13-09-2008 8:38pm

It's a generally accepted "fact" in Economics that you need a State to provide property rights, a general legal framework* etc for the market to even function properly, never mind be efficient. There's a good book by Mancur Olson on the topic: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Power-Prosperity-Outgrowing-Capitalist-Dictatorships/dp/0465051960/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221334672&sr=8-1, it was published after his death and lacks a bit for it (it's not as tight as his other work, but it's a pretty good examination of why the Market needs the State (and the State needs the Market) among other topics.

*i.e. that it is necessary in capitalism for some degree of State coercion in terms of legal enforcement, the creation of legislation, regulation and in taxation since we need to a) pay for the previous list of things and b) pay for and maintain public goods such as the majority of roads etc that the private market simply cannot efficiently provide since there is no profit motive to produce them. You can add a bunch of other stuff like basic education etc depending on your political viewpoint, though they are more arguable than necessary.

Permabear · 13-09-2008 10:28pm

This post has been deleted.

nesf · 13-09-2008 11:49pm

Of course, and that's where the debate is in any democratic market state and there are no simple black or white lines here. Different markets require different regulation and State involvement. Some markets require the barest touch, others require much more because of either externalities or moral hazard. Our biggest problem is that markets evolve quickly and technology can turn a previously straightforward market into one that's open to widespread abuse. Wide sweeping statements about the need for the State to keep out of markets is fine, but only when the person saying them realises that reality is really not that simple.

"The bureaucracy is expanding, to meet the growing needs of the expanding bureaucracy."

Kama · 14-09-2008 12:16pm

While ideological packages shift more than we generaly give them credit for one part of the classic conservative liberal debate philosophically would be whether you regard the State as an oppressive coercive intruder, as in a lot of anarchist and libertarian anti-statist thought, or an emancipatory vehicle to accomplish social-political goals, as in American liberal thought among others. My wager is the cat is both black and white tbh, and in a zero-sum situation one mans meat is another mans poison.

I'd find it helpful to unpick the fiscal-economic and social aspects of conservatism; I don't see a necessary connection between market-libertarianism and social conservatism, like much of politics it seemed a marriage of convenience.
Note the recent American Republican trend kept the social conservatism, but dumped the fiscal side. Which when chatting to Republican friends in the US they referred to the 'party leaving them' on a path of 'religious moralism and economic irresponsibility'.

fly_agaric · 14-09-2008 2:00pm

I disagree.

Is not the end result of a program like donegalfellas first post a massively unequal system where the rich almost completely control the lives of the poor? (far more so than in a state that takes tax (boo-hiss:pac:) from wealthier people, companies and then redistributes some of it to those with less in the way of public services, welfare, providing public infrastructure etc).

If you are born rich you are made - born poor (or with perhaps other disadvantages) you are screwed [edit...well maybe you could be the 1 in a million superbright and lucky "peasant" who climbs out of the mire...we all can dream].
You are creating a sort of master/slave-system based on wealth. Is that not an undemocratic system (even if it has emerged as a result of the state, IMO, abdicating its responsibilites as opposed to state oppression)?

The Corinthian · 15-09-2008 10:50am

Of course there is an emphasis on the study different economic models; both past and present, actual and theoretical, failed and successful (stable). It's called comparative economic studies. It is insane to suggest that anyone can study macroeconomics and effectively ignore all but one model.

Additionally, you seem to believe that any model that includes any type of state ownership or management is automatically Marxist, as you repeatedly label any such model as such. This is simply ignorance of Marxist or, for that matter, any model that employs such state involvement.

That is what I was implying - apologies if this was not clear enough for you.

Stagflation in practice was not felt until the 1970's - prior to this it was yet another theory that challenged the established view put forward by the Phillips curve. The term wasn't even invented until 1965!

It's a fact only because you say so, so you'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it. So far the only evidence I've seen of it looks more like a self-taught Wikipedia course.

They earn it from both the public and private sector. The public sector may receive funds from would-be inheritances, but as I said, private industry is otherwise not owned by the State - there are no other taxes, maximizing disposable income, and property through inheritance could be put back into private ownership by banning that the State retain any (beyond, say, six months) and requiring that it sell any gained at a market value. Revenue generated, would run the state, which in turn could contract out to private enterprise.

As I said, a ban on state ownership of assets beyond six months of acquiring it.

Of course, I'm not suggesting this is a realistic model, nor do I personally support it, but I raised it as a means of testing your own commitment to meritocracy.

?
Unfortunately then you are acting upon the meritocracy you claim to support. Inherited wealth is in no way meritocratic, it creates a group with an unfair competitive advantage, having a starting point of capital, education and, collectively, social connections that is not available to the rest of the populace.

This is why I have my doubts as to your belief in meritocracy. So far it is the only compelling moral reason for a purely capitalistic economy. But even this you place limits on. Ultimately what you are really arguing for is an economy that is meritocratic on your terms - "I'm all right jack and fück the rest".

False. AT&T is one example of a monopoly that formed purely through a laisser fare system and was only broken through government intervention. De Beers is one that still exists. Indeed, have you never heard of a natural monopoly? Seriously, you are talking a lot of claptrap.

djpbarry · 15-09-2008 12:19pm

I believe there is a need for people without degrees, if that is what you’re asking. I’m asking you to demonstrate how a labour shortage will not arise if non-Irish people without a college degree cannot enter the country.

And I guarantee you we would see kids who are seen to lack potential being turned away from schools. If teacher pay were related to performance, teachers would be far less willing to teach, shall we say, “Kids Who Can't Read Good And Wanna Learn To Do Other Stuff Good Too”.

Are you saying that it is inevitable that I will be become disabled at some point in the future?

That is ridiculous. You think everyone (or even most) people in this country is happy to let the state look after them? Why do so many people have health insurance?

No; that is not a rational decision in ANY universe, considering the damage that the packet of cigarettes per day (approx.) is doing to her health. How you can blame her attitude on the state is beyond me; she is responsible for her own well-being.

So the government should cut back everything and leave the disabled to fend for themselves?

That “planning” generally involved having loads of kids (some of whom would die) so that you’d have someone to look after you in your old age.

I don’t place a great deal of stock in nationalism; I don’t really care what nationality the guy in the dole queue is.

Yes. After all, there are non-Irish people working in this country who are contributing to the welfare of Irish people, aren’t there?

Or maybe you could?

Kama · 15-09-2008 2:40pm

Welcome to the internets!
Basic rules:

A: There are no girls on the internet
and
B: Screenshot or it didn't happen

Seriously...no-one is going to be able to 'prove' their credentials on a board; the joy of this is you can demonstrate them, and in a group of peers they demonstrate themselves. It's all very meritocratic hehe...

Agree with the statement in theory, but in my limited xp of economics departments (>>>appends degree transcripts here<<<) and the discipline in general it happens. I find it quite plausible that you could get through an economics degree without touching on alternate/heterodox approaches, especially if the course had an applied or practical business focus. Less time for obscure academic critiques, dated frameworks and history lessons: just do it!

Disciplinary history and comparative studies in economics, in my view, have suffered from the exclusive trend toward mathematical model-building. A heavy quant focus becomes the mark of virtue, and the messy social side gets fewer faculty positions. The 'joke' here is that economics, like a lot of social sciences, got 'physics-envy', wanted to be more 'sciency', and historical-comparative was seen as too 'soft', which imo leads to a less self-aware discipline.

Methodological or theoretical 'fundamentalism' to me a point where economics as an an applied social science can veer sharply towards the barren shores of ideological seclusion. So long as everyone broadly agrees with you on theoretical presuppositions, and uses similar models, unsurprisingly results build on themselves, and lo, a school is born!

'Debunking' isn't the same in the social world as in, say, formal logic. The 'joke' here is that theories don't get disproven; instead, their advocates die and are replaced, and we call that a paradigm shift.

Clear-cut proof and disproof tends not to be science-in-practice, even in harder sciences. Research programmes die hard, you might say...and given that desired outcomes depend on social choice, there ain't going to be a 'right' answer; more like if this, then that. What 'that' you want is an inherently normative question, and doesn't fall neatly into a cumulative or scientific view of knowledge.

There's a fairly-clear distinction between more 'pure' or abstract disciplines and applied social ones, which is reflexivity; the ground to be mapped shifts with the act of mapping. Economics is involved in constituting the world it models, rather than merely observing it; the discipline took Marx's dictum that the role of philosophy is to change the world to heart

nesf · 15-09-2008 4:28pm

I would definitely agree. You'll tend to get some Keynesian, some supply side stuff, occasionally (depending on the lecturer) some Austrian or Chicago-style economics but you'll very rarely get an in-depth discussion of the methodological and philosophical differences between the different schools. From an undergraduate is training for the real world perspective, this makes perfect sense, the average Economics undergraduate is not someone who'll ever be dictating economic policy or be expected to give an in-depth account on the methodology or philosophy of the discipline, so why train them in that fashion?

A very apt example of this came from a discussion with a lecturer in the subject I know. In his day you were encouraged to do a BA in Economics/Philosophy or Economics/History, nowadays you're encouraged to do Economics/Stats or Economics/Maths. The quant takeover of economics has been very thorough over the past few decades. If you can't express it as a mathematical model it's not real economics in some people's eyes.

Kama · 15-09-2008 7:30pm

Yep, one of my lecturers actually apoligized, partially in jest, for teaching Keynes! :eek:

There's a quote I can't place, which was advice to his students, which went as follows:

'Save philosophical or methodological criticism until after you've retired'

Basically...That stuff won't get you any points or a job, don't ask awkward questions, etc. I transferred out of my Environmental Econ class because of something like this. So unlike Corinthian, I think you could have any numbers of economics qualifications without doing anarcho-syndicalist economics or Georgism or even comparative history or much of the development of monetary policy, moving from fringe to centre.

Yes, in terms of expediency in pedagogy this makes a lot of sense, but there's a definite loss to the discipline from this in terms of critical thinking, attention to normative foundations, historical understanding of the world-system and and economic thought, and so on. Imo, the trend away from history makes the discipline less scientific rather than more.You can do the 'soft stuff' as an quirky side interest, but its not 'real economics'. The heavy quant is dominant now, and self-reinforcing, for better or worse.

nesf · 15-09-2008 9:21pm

I would fully agree. Personally I'm fiscally conservative but I'm really not conservative socially (both by European standards rather than American) so find myself in a bit of a bind when the marriage of convenience comes up and a bit dismayed by the troubles of the PDs.

In this book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Creative-Industries-Contracts-Between-Commerce/dp/0674008081/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221510180&sr=8-2

The author explains at the start that it is what he wanted to write since he joined the discipline (it's on the economics of the creative industries) but that doing so would damage his career prospects (he's presently an emeritus professor at Harvard, to put it in context).

There's a loss to the discipline but as one lecturer put it to me, "how many "Economists" do you think Munster produces each year?" (this was UCC obviously). It's a good point, very few people go into subjects like Economics with a view towards academia rather than a career outside of academics, it would really be an injustice to the majority of the students to force them to deal with the quagmire that is economic philosophy and methodology (it's both complex, very much not black and white and utterly useless outside of academics from a practical point of view).

Kovik · 15-09-2008 11:58pm

Since the late 1980s there has been a political culture of simply trying to cooperate and manage the country as effectively as possible among parties. Coallitions and voting support from other parties are far more common here than elsewhere due to the low number of TDs and an electoral system that ensures overall majorities of any substance are a rarity. As a result, there's a greater atmosphere of consensus here, driving parties toward compromise and away from obstinate, doctrinaire stubborness.

The fact that we have nobody blindly screaming "THE MARKETS WILL PROVIDE IT" or "THE STATE SHOULD CONTROL IT" is a blessing. Both positions are equally naive.

Kama · 16-09-2008 2:04am

Agree again, on a practical level it'd be pretty daft, and not what the degree is actually for. On the downside, tends to make for slightly doctrinaire thinking, and a tendency to think economic 'truth' is more settled and unquestioned than (I think) it is. Mind you, anything gets unspeakably complex if you get too close. Its the old rule on models: simplify as much as possible, but not too much

QFT. Whatever the demerits of our political system, we don't have the straight bipartisan split and its attendent Hurrah-Boo politics; I mean we have it, but compared to the US for instance I think we're lucky. Am a big fan of pluralism, whether political or in economic thought

SkepticOne · 16-09-2008 9:46am

In Ireland?

Kama · 18-09-2008 12:44pm

Compared to a majoritarian adversarial bipartisan system, there sure is...

molloyjh · 18-09-2008 2:44pm

I'm going to try and deal with each point here so this may be a bit on the long side. Additionally I haven't the time nor the inclination to read all 16 pages so apologies if this has been covered to death already.

Secession from the EU would drive foreign investment out of this country and leave us with massive unemployment and a poor standard of living. There simply isn't enough high paying, home-grown industries out there to replace the Microsofts and the Intels etc. This would then lead to huge emigration, and negligible if any immigration.

This point is really just an extension of the one above as we couldn't hold the Euro and leave the EU.

I recognise this point is balanced out with the "less Government interference" point and so I'll deal with that in one go below.

As above.

as above - with the added point that without the free movement of goods within the EU - which is one of the 2 primary reasons we have so much foreign investment - that corporate rate would be fairly meaningless.

As above.

With the foreign investment gone and very little here to employ people (we are nowhere near as self-sufficient as the US, and they have huge issues that are just compunded by their unemployment assistance policies) this would condemn a huge proportion of the country to utter poverty.

I'm assuming you mean that you want to see public pensions replaced by private pensions? I don't really know enough about pensions to discuss with any degree of confidence either way, but maybe you could clarify that bit?

I think one of the main things we have that places us above the US in my estimation is the way that we look after people. While I agree the system is currently far too open to abuse and needs to be tightened up I find it extremely cold-hearted and callous that this would be suggested. There are people out there that cannot help the situation they are in, at least not in the short term. To abandon them would mean that they could never get out of whatever hole they are in. I had family living in the US who always said it was great so long as you were on your feet,but God help anyone who fell on hard times because once you were down it was next to impossible to get back up again.

I think a lot of that depends on the area. I think there are certain things that the private sector can do best and certain things that should be left to the State. The private sector by nature is only interested in profits and areas like healthcare and education, which should be about the people and nothing more, stand to lose out in the long run if privatised. Sure those with money could afford a great education. But those without are just left behind. It ties in well, and serves to only add to, the issues in the previous point.

Unions provide a very important function. I do believe they currently are too powerful and need to be reigned in somewhat, but their removal will only lead to abuses of workers rights. People working in highly skilled jobs, i.e. the lucky few earning a decent wage, will not suffer too much from it, however the lower skilled (and therefore lower paid) workers will.

Dealt with above. Education should never be about profit and while fiscal responsibility is needed, education seerves a far higher purpose. All private education will do is serve to alienate those less fortunate.

I'm with you on that one, but its a fairly vague statement which requires the other points to point to how you want to achieve that. I would certainly be in favour of this on the surface, but would go about it very differently.

As a small island we have no control over the global economic situation and a huge dependance on it. This is not something that can be acheivable if we're going to hand out any surpluses we have. Any responsible economist will tell you that you need to put some money aside to cover the "rainy days".

Again a fairly vague point that noone can really argue with (I would hope). However this, like many other things, needs to be State run. The last thing we need is judges with strict quotas, I'm sure we've all seen the way that has gone with the likes of the NCT for example!

At the end of the day your ideas have a huge amount in common with the Republican element in the US. You are probably fairly well off yourself, you got the opportunity to get a good education, went on to third level and have at least a degree if not more. You're employed in a realtively high valued job and haven't suffered too much financially in your life. I would fall into the same social bracket as this myself. However not everyone else does. And there's no guarantee that even if we are that we remain so, especially in the current economic climate.

Re your point about Government involvement all I can say is that much of this economic crisis could have been avoided if there had been more Government regulation in the banking sector in the US - particularly the mortgage area. The fact that the banks were able (and willing) to take on ridiculous customers etc just goes to show the ultimate fallibility of the private sector. The focus is on short term profit and nothing more. While that has its place, thats all it is, a place among other things. What we need is balance between that kind of thing and the more liberal system that we have tended towards - as I said I think the unions for example have gotten too powerful so there are aspects of our own model that could do with reform. There's a happy medium somwhere, the challenge is to find it.

Why doesn't Ireland have conservatives?

Comments