Switching Ideology

[geoffrey]

Well sir, in the long run we are all dead. That's why I personally propose a balanced solution of long-term economic interest and short term prevent the peasents from rioting welfare (or workfare).

Funny you'd quote Keynes here.

That's about as far as my belief in him goes.

Currently the peasants are mainly single moms and their kids. Currently, the gap between the rich and the poor (which we well know is growing) is really a gap between the older and the younger (with the younger being falling further and further behind). One simple reason for that is that tax cuts benefit the older working people who are in the prime earning years of their lives, at the expense of younger people who get buried deeper and deeper in debt due to increased tuition fees, housing and childcare costs, and user fees. Further tax cuts will achieve more of the same.

I agree with you on the factual backgrounder there. But not on the trouble of cutting taxes. Cutting taxes doesn't hurt anyone. If the parents are richer, perhaps they'll pony up a little for Junior's education. Either way, it doesn't hurt Junior for someone else to have more money, as long as Junior see's benefit too.

Tuition being too expensive is just a sad joke. I'll admit that my preparation and opportunity (who said that one, ol' quote master) have coincided well and I've lived pretty nicely during university. But I have friends working at $10-12 an hour jobs (typical labour in Calgary) and without any major student debt living out of their parent's home. So my sympathy with tuition is zero. It's an investment in your future, you should be happy to pay it. If you don't feel like your getting your money's worth, then society doesn't value your education and you shouldn't be pursuing it.

Housing costs might be an issue. But perhaps it's about time. More expensive houses in Calgary's suburbs are pushing condo development downtown... which reduces traffic issues. I think land and houses are undervalued for optimum benefit to society. The market is working great here, pushing people to more efficient means of shelter.

In addition, tax cuts are a tax deferral and a transfer of wealth from the younger to the older generation. Furthermore, any tax cuts that the older will benefit from now will be reversed as soon as those older retire and the younger will pay for it through the nose. Seeing that you are one of those in the younger generation, I fail to see why you are so eager to let the boomers off the hook for their expenses and and end up on the hook for them later? Again, those long-term conservative "solutions" lead to more long-term "problems" but After Us, the Diluge. Someone else will deal with them later.

Tax cuts aren't a deferral, I've heard this many times from many economists and I've heard it shot down a nearly equal number of times. In a growing economy, tax cuts are an investment in the long-term. Your right though if the economy stagnates or declines, then the cuts become an issue. With economies of scale and the such, growth in a nation should lead to lesser of a burden on individual tax payers.

Why do you suggest we'll have to raise our taxes later? If we maintain program spending growth at or below inflation, we should be able to cut taxes at the tax base grows through natural growth and immigration.

I'm not advocating massive tax cuts and massive deficits... balanced budgets, tax cuts and spending cuts (less intervention in silly matters like Health Canada and Heritage). Your arguments would be more valid if I was cheering for major debt and deficits, but I'm not.

[Black Dog]

So that leaves me comfortable with the CPC or the Liberals (with the right leader... being Kennedy), really just extremly pro-business, anti-slacker. Possibly nearing fascist at times in regards to forced labour for the unemployed (think of how clean our streets would be)... stuff like that... without the nationalism or social control.

There's a term for your viewpoint: economism.

Economism is a term used to criticize economic reductionism, that is the reduction of all social facts to economical dimensions. It is also used to criticize economics as an ideology, in which supply and demand are the only important factors in decisions, and literally outstrip or permit ignoring all other factors. It is widely believed to be a side effect of neoclassical economics and blind faith in an "invisible hand" or "laissez-faire" means of making decisions, extended far beyond controlled and regulated markets, and used to make political and military decisions. Conventional ethics would play no role in decisions under pure economism, except insofar as supply would be withheld, demand curtailed, by moral choices of individuals.

[geoffrey]

There's a term for your viewpoint: economism.

I prefer: Neoliberalism

In its dominant international use, neoliberalism refers to a political-economic philosophy that de-emphasizes or rejects government intervention in the domestic economy. It focuses on free-market methods, fewer restrictions on business operations, and property rights.... It promotes reducing the role of national governments to a minimum. Neoliberalism favours privatization over direct government intervention and production (such as Keynesianism), and measures success in overall economic gain. To improve efficiency and minimize unemployment, it strives to reject or mitigate labour policies such as minimum wage, and collective bargaining rights. It opposes socialism, protectionism, environmentalism, fair trade, and critics say it impedes democratic rule.

It's sexier. Though I strongly disagree that neoliberal ideals oppose fair trade... with no trade restrictions, it's a pretty level field if you want it to be. Same with environment.

[Black Dog]

Neoliberalism... measures success in overall economic gain.

IMO that's a brutalist, dehumanizing view of the world.

[JerrySeinfeld]

My shift right began in 2nd year university as I became very immersed in various 200-300 level economics courses.

In particular, the depth in one econometrics course made me realize the ludicrousy of actually trying to plan that shit out from some central office

Also, I took a look around me during poli-sci courses and realized all people espousing the left wing stuff were snivelling whiney teet-suckers. I vowed never to walk with that crowd again.

I have since moderated some of my hard core right wing positions but generally I still make harper look like a commie.

I've always been prettyu liberal about abortion or pot or gay marriage but I still love to make the argument because there's nothing more entertaining than seeing a snivelling teet-sucker get riled up.

There is an old saying:

If you're not a lefty when your young, you don't have a heart. If you're not a conservative when you mature, you don't have a brain

[Charles Anthony]

If you're not a lefty when your young, you don't have a heart.

Actually, if you are not a lefty when you are young, your parents probably raised you to be a fine up-standing citizen who does not wait at the trough for a free-lunch.

[geoffrey]

Neoliberalism... measures success in overall economic gain.

IMO that's a brutalist, dehumanizing view of the world.

Or the best way that we can improve everyone's quality of life. I'm sure most Africans would be considerably more happy if they had food and a shelter and maybe some clothing.

People that denounce wealth like it's the plague obviously don't see the corelation between wealth and ranking on the very left-biased quality of life index.

[Black Dog]

People that denounce wealth like it's the plague obviously don't see the corelation between wealth and ranking on the very left-biased quality of life index.

So why is it that the wealthiest countries with the best quality of life tend to be those with a considerable degree of state internevtion in the economy?

[Charles Anthony]

So why is it that the wealthiest countries with the best quality of life tend to be those with a considerable degree of state internevtion in the economy?

You really are making a cause-and-effect with this one?? Come on. You can do better than that.

Here is a possible reason: the affluent countries can afford the waste created by government intervention. Would you expect a millionaire to stop on the street to pick up a lucky penny??? No --- because he can afford to walk by and ignore it. Bending over is not worth the hassle.

What if he walked by a silver dollar? or $100 bill? or a winning lottery ticket?

At some point, he will reach a threshold where picking it up will be worth the effort. Until then, people in affluent countries are more comfortable accepting the waste and injustice of government intervention redistribution of wealth.

[Saturn]

Here is a possible reason: the affluent countries can afford the waste created by government intervention. Would you expect a millionaire to stop on the street to pick up a lucky penny??? No --- because he can afford to walk by and ignore it. Bending over is not worth the hassle.

What if he walked by a silver dollar? or $100 bill? or a winning lottery ticket?

At some point, he will reach a threshold where picking it up will be worth the effort. Until then, people in affluent countries are more comfortable accepting the waste and injustice of government intervention redistribution of wealth.

Or they can accept, as in most wealthy arab countries, that god gave all wealth to few individuals who can hoard it and run the show dictatorially, while a third of their citizens are iliterate and starve. After all the sheik needs 333 red ferraris and the commoners don't need more than a piece of bread to survive.