United Left Alliance will form party, says Higgins

doopa

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Funny criticism of centre left parties seems to be one thing libertarians and the left agree on. For once there is an example of them using the same word to mean to same thing (ish). Both refer to state capitalism, on the left its bad cos it has capitalism in it, on the libertarian side its bad cos it has state in it. I think its a pretty apt description of where we are now, the state sees itself as responsible for maintaining capitalism hence the bailouts and so on. Neither the left or the right have one outright in the battle of ideas from the 20th (19th maybe) century but we do seem to have reached a stalemate where neither gets to fully implement all of its ideas and so both are free to point out the failings of the other without the ability to critically evaluate either.

I think its a shame that the state feels obliged to make its influence felt on increasing sectors of society however, if capitalism is to advance and become more accepted then greater trust must be built. I suppose trust here is really avoiding the cycles that seem inherent to it, that are probably a result of problems of pyschology and particularly groupthink. The banking industry seems particularly bad at it, the turn over of staff probably being one issue. The issue seems almost generational, if the people are still in the bank that witnessed the last crash then it doesn't happen but then once they leave the young turks are left to cause another crash.

With regard to being labelled extreme right - this is something you have to ask yourself - why is it so easy for the libertarian movement to be portrayed in this manner? I don't have any specific answers, but if it was genuinely about freedom (or insert favourite abstract idea) then why does that never come across in news reports. At least the left make it clear they are largely about helping the poor (even if you disagree that this is what they actually achieve).

SupaNova

Both refer to state capitalism, on the left its bad cos it has capitalism in it, on the libertarian side its bad cos it has state in it. I think its a pretty apt description of where we are now, the state sees itself as responsible for maintaining capitalism hence the bailouts and so on.

This is about right. The thing is libertarians have very well thought out logical reasons for why the state is one of the biggest causes of the current mess. On the left they blame capitalism for everything that's wrong with the world and most have little understanding of what capitalism is. State capitalism is what we have.

I think its a shame that the state feels obliged to make its influence felt on increasing sectors of society however, if capitalism is to advance and become more accepted then greater trust must be built. I suppose trust here is really avoiding the cycles that seem inherent to it, that are probably a result of problems of pyschology and particularly groupthink. The banking industry seems particularly bad at it, the turn over of staff probably being one issue. The issue seems almost generational, if the people are still in the bank that witnessed the last crash then it doesn't happen but then once they leave the young turks are left to cause another crash.

The cycles involved in free market capitalism with real hard currency(gold or silver) would be relatively harmless. The current system uses fiat currency, currency created out of thin air by central banks. This money is loaned to governments to decide how it is spent. The government uses the taxation of its economy and citizens as collateral. Libertarians see this as a big problem as governments usually don't spend this money with the intention of growing an economy enough to pay the loan and interest. Governments in the past have used this money to fund wars. None of the wars in the last 100 years would have likely happened if we were using hard currency as no government would have been able to afford it.

More recently governments have used it to fuel bubbles like the housing bubble. Governments pump fiat money into whatever keeps them in power, the housing bubble gave the appearance of great wealth, they done everything to keep this housing bubble going with no care for how it would end. It looked great on the surface, unemployment was low, and our welfare state was the most generous in the world. The public sector received increased wages and pensions. The politicians got to give themselves big fat wages. There was something for everyone. Either politicians were grossly incompetent and thought this is how you run an economy, or knew it was a huge bubble and didn't care as long as everything seemed fine and they were living it up.

With regard to being labelled extreme right - this is something you have to ask yourself - why is it so easy for the libertarian movement to be portrayed in this manner? I don't have any specific answers, but if it was genuinely about freedom (or insert favourite abstract idea) then why does that never come across in news reports. At least the left make it clear they are largely about helping the poor (even if you disagree that this is what they actually achieve).

The welfare state is one reason. People have come to love it, even the ones that are getting a raw deal. People say libertarians don't care about the:
-unemployed
-the sick
-the old

Which is completely false. We all will have periods of unemployment, we all will get sick and we all will get old, why would someone not care about things that will affect them at various points of their lives.

-Unemployment insurance is much fairer system than the dole. Those that make great effort to find work when unemployed would have very low premiums, those who are lazy ****ers would end up with very high premiums or perhaps lose the option of insurance. People would find other jobs before they quit one because they didn't like it and could live on the dole. People would then ask what about the lazy ****ers who have lost the ability to get insurance aren't they vulnerable. No they are not they are lazy ****s.

-This one has some moral appeal as insurance companies might opt out of insuring high risk people. There are obvious solutions, like taking out insurance when your healthy. Peoples premiums will be based on lifestyle and family history which is fair. Why should a person with a healthy lifestyle pay the same as someone who drinks smokes and never exercises. The family history part seems a bit harsh.

-What about the old. Well libertarians aren't going to leave the old to die. After years of living in a state with very low tax, and a state without a leeching social welfare system, people would have considerably more savings. And those savings would not be depleted by high inflation caused by massive expansion in the money supply using the fiat money system.

The benefits would be provided in a far fairer manner and a lot cheaper if we didn't have the social welfare state.

Libertarians want as small a government as possible with little power of interference into the free market. People for government and massive state power are intent on portraying us as some evil capitalists because of this.

Libertarians are against government control of industries. That's not going to get much support from the public sector. But just take a look at the current state of our education and health. Imagine if you had the choice between the government education(the chance to not pay tax for it) and new private schools that would only gain business if they could offer the exact same service for cheaper, or by offering something better. Likewise with healthcare.

SupaNova

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK8dPHqK16Y

Great explanation of the current mess. I know its the US but its almost identical to what happened here.

SupaNova

Good video explaining the calculation problem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7zzH8ruLDc

southsiderosie

ei.sdraob wrote: »

For all those "moving parts" to move there has to be free and fair competitive trade, and more importantly an environment conductive to business. Whats the point of growing apples or assembling ovens if they are taken away from you?

Unfortunately socialism has a tendency to try to control all aspects of the economy, time and time again destroying economies and countries by distorting prices and trying to control production and going over the top with the whole redistribution business. And worse of all killing the will to bake apples or sow wheat or make butter, whats the point of doing all of that if you are provided for anyways?

Control and socialism go hand in hand, without top down control how else will be sliced equally?

Looking forward to your reply.

I am not trying to make an argument about socialism. I am making a point about capitalism.

You and many others who call for a 'favorable business environment' again too often focus on the business side of the complaint without looking at broader social issues. From a social perspective, what is the point in having a society that is 'conducive to doing business' when that society is not conducive to starting a family, paying off student loans, or even getting a job in the first place? There has to be more consideration of what effects business, and in particular tax policies, have on not just the business community, but society as a whole, and this will require some level of regulation, oversight, and on occasion redistribution. And here I am not talking about Castro-style policies, but rather policies that maintain a basic security, transport, educational and health infrastructure. To return to the pie metaphor, a social contract in what I would consider a decent society recognizes that while you may bake the pies, the government will take a slice of it in order to maintain the roads that the pies were delivered on, pay for the schools that the people who produce the raw materials send their kids to, and provide health coverage for when people get diabetes from eating too many of your delicious product.

I also think there is a false distinction between right and left and control over the economy. Price distortion is possible though subsidies, control of currency and interest rates, and preferential trade policies - all of which are in some forms supported by the political right in many industrialized countries, not least of which, the US. There is no such thing - and there will NEVER be such as thing - as a completely free and fair market or free and fair competition, mainly because human nature gets in the way. And this holds, whether one os talking about 'pure' liberal or libertarian economics or a 'pure' socialist or communist state: it will never happen because greed and lust for power will eventually override whatever utopian principles that originally supported the political ideology.

SupaNova

I also think there is a false distinction between right and left and control over the economy. Price distortion is possible though subsidies, control of currency and interest rates, and preferential trade policies - all of which are in some forms supported by the political right in many industrialized countries, not least of which, the US.

Price distortion, control of currency and interest rates, preferential trade policies are all bad ideas, they are disrupting the free market. If governments stopped making these interventions, we would be a lot better for it and a lot closer to a free market.

There is no such thing - and there will NEVER be such as thing - as a completely free and fair market or free and fair competition, mainly because human nature gets in the way. And this holds, whether one os talking about 'pure' liberal or libertarian economics or a 'pure' socialist or communist state: it will never happen because greed and lust for power will eventually override whatever utopian principles that originally supported the political ideology.

There never will be a free and fair market if governments continue policies that disrupt the market. If governments can be convinced of the damage these policies do then maybe they would drop them, which would mean a more free market. We might never get a totally free market but removing some of the policies you mention would be a massive step in the right direction.

southsiderosie

SupaNova wrote: »

Price distortion, control of currency and interest rates, preferential trade policies are all bad ideas, they are disrupting the free market. If governments stopped making these interventions, we would be a lot better for it and a lot closer to a free market.



There never will be a free and fair market if governments continue policies that disrupt the market. If governments can be convinced of the damage these policies do then maybe they would drop them, which would mean a more free market. We might never get a totally free market but removing some of the policies you mention would be a massive step in the right direction.

My point is that these distortions are not a "right" or a "left" issue, but rather a "special interests" issue. As long as governments represent the will of interests within the population, these kinds of policies will exist. And even if governments did not create distortions, and completely stood out of the way (which I don't believe would happen in general), special interests would move to control and/or distort market outcomes in a way that disproportionately benefited themselves.

SupaNova

My point is that these distortions are not a "right" or a "left" issue, but rather a "special interests" issue. As long as governments represent the will of interests within the population, these kinds of policies will exist.

Saying they are a special interest issue is about right. Mostly governments preserving themselves and vote winning by convincing people these policies are for the good of everyone:
-Price distortion, i presume you mean price controls to stop inflating prices, and subsidies to prop up uncompetitive businesses. These policies are not in the best interest of the people. Price controls don't get to the root of the problem. Subsidies only benefit those who receive them at the cost of everyone else.
-control of currency and interest rates, are big cause of the current mess, keeping interest rates artificially low and supplying cheap credit with reckless abandon is not in the best interests of everyone.
-and preferential trade policies are clearly only in the interest of those who benefit from preferential treatment

All these policies are disruptions of the free market.

SupaNova

You and many others who call for a 'favorable business environment' again too often focus on the business side of the complaint without looking at broader social issues. From a social perspective, what is the point in having a society that is 'conducive to doing business' when that society is not conducive to starting a family, paying off student loans, or even getting a job in the first place? There has to be more consideration of what effects business, and in particular tax policies, have on not just the business community, but society as a whole

Agree that people need a greater understanding of policies and their effect. Look at some of the policies a libertarians suggest unemployment insurance vs the dole, health insurance vs "free" health care. And fiscal responsibility. All these are policies that would benefit society as a whole. Everyone would be better off.

require some level of regulation, oversight, and on occasion redistribution

Regulation and oversight i don't have a problem with. The redistribution bit scares me, can you give me an example of an occasion when you think this is right?

ei.sdraob

southsiderosie wrote: »

My point is that these distortions are not a "right" or a "left" issue, but rather a "special interests" issue. As long as governments represent the will of interests within the population, these kinds of policies will exist. And even if governments did not create distortions, and completely stood out of the way (which I don't believe would happen in general), special interests would move to control and/or distort market outcomes in a way that disproportionately benefited themselves.

The problem with market distortions aka bubbles is that they eventually implode
as seen here in Ireland

now if the government then didn't turn around and socialise the issues faced by certain "interest groups", we would have been all fine and dandy by now

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't disagree with much of your assessment. The fact that governments are not demonstrating value for citizens delegitimizes them in the long run, and that is exactly what we are seeing now. And ultimately I think social partnership ended up being a disaster, not only for the public, but for low-wage workers, and, as is increasingly clear, the internal capacity of Irish unions, which essentially got fat and lazy.

I think the issue, however, is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The 'public' needs to go back in 'public servants', and that applies to both bureaucrats and elected officials. But that would take a massive shift in the political culture of Ireland, and despite all of the economic chaos, I don't think things are there yet.

I don't think 'social contracts' are a scam, but they require an active citizenry to ensure that public officials hold up their end of the bargain and many Irish people abdicated this responsibility when times were fat. I also think that there is no real consensus around what the Irish social contract should look like anyway; despite all the talk of "Boston or Berlin", Ireland is essentially run like a big-city political machine. However, the machine is clearly broken (and broke), so it will be interesting to see what, if anything, will replace it. Whatever it is, I doubt it will be socialism.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

doopa

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Now in fairness Ireland was 16th in the PISA rankings in 2006. And it will probably go back up in 2012 - though admittedly that's probably more to do with the size of the fall in 2009. It has also delivered increasing numbers of students to third level education, as noted in the report - it has the third highest number of STEM (science, something beginnng with T technology maybe, engineering and maths) graduates in the EU. Though I do find it worrying in one of those reports that the level of maths currently does not equip pupils for the workforce and presumably this includes operating a till and simple stuff like that, nevermind actual maths (as opposed to counting).

Also - the decline from 16th to 26th is not treated by the report writers as significant since they are unable to gauge the margin of error in the measurement.

RE Donegal roads... you have to admit they have come on a long way. IIRC you'se only got your first traffic light in 87 or something (perhaps its a joke!). So demanding motorways so soon after would be a bit much, the A5 should hopefully still be coming which will improve things for Donegal to Dublin travel. Infrastructure spending has demonstrably improved the infrastructure here, in a way that private spending wouldn't have. I'd prefer to see decent trains as well, but heh you can't have everything. High speed train from Dublin to Letterkenny should have one home in under two hours. In Germany it could be about an hour. Good infrastructure is essential for growth, nevermind that it does represent Keynesian stimulus.

dan719

CiaranC wrote: »

Your politics are openly, blatantly, obviously and demonstrably a failure, and have destroyed this country, despite your constantly trying to pin this on some imaginary phantom bogeyman "left". These wackos couldnt do half as much damage as you and your ilk, with your politics of self serving greed have done. Time to put away Atlas Shrugged, read another book and pick an new online persona. I see youve changed your username so you are halfway there.

How is the USSR doing, btw?;)