Today’s press release on Cadbury’s redundancies highlights why the Alliance will never return to Parliament. The Alliance of today offers nothing more than the two Marxist minnows, RAM and the Workers Party, demanding nothing more than economic central planning and income redistribution.
They claim redundancies at Cadbury area trend to low wage and casualised work force. Unfortunately for them and their openly Marxist compatriots trending upward median wages suggest the revolution’s further away than ever. Likewise, their claim about casualisation doesn’t match the statistics on full-time vs. part-time employment.
Source: Labour Market Statistics: 2007, Statistics NZ.
Even increasing inequality isn’t a revolution inducing trend.
31 responses so far ↓
Oliver Woods // 24 August, 2008 at 3:11 pm |
I can now see why you limit your blog to 100 words . If you didn’t, it would become far too clear to the rest of the universe that you are a tool.
Richard // 24 August, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
Don’t like what’s written; how about coming up with a rebuttal?
Justin // 24 August, 2008 at 11:58 pm |
The reds aren’t under the bed, but apparently they live in the heads of hysterical people who write 100 word blogs. I would have thought that even right wing parrots could see the benefits of productive industry, as opposed to basing Dunedin’s economy soley on the fickle tides of servicing tourists and students. If intervention is required to ensure secure jobs and to preserve a local economy that actually makes things, then so be it. Also working people understand that full time/part time refers to the hours you work, where as permanent/casual refers to the tenure or security of your job. So I could work full time hours on a casual contract, or I could work part time hours on a permanent basis. So I am not sure what you are proving with your stats NZ chart…
Richard // 25 August, 2008 at 8:12 pm |
Hi Justin (Justin Wilson #23 on the Alliance list??)
Not sure what you think is hysterical in my post. It’s certainly not hysterical to call RAM and the Workers Party marxist. The WP couldn’t be more open about it – during the Wellington Mayoral campaign their candidate virtually quoted the Communist manifesto. As for RAM if NRT (http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2008/04/parties.html) and the Fundy Post (http://fundypost.blogspot.com/2007/08/beat-rates-with-red-wedge.html) are refering to them the way they have, I’m hardly being hysterical.
As for being a right wing parrot not recognising the benefits of productive industry, what’s happened at Cadbury is exactly what you would expect in an industry becoming more productive – investing in capital to allow fewer people to make more stuff.
The press release did not refer to securing jobs or the local economy, it railed against a single firm reducing staff. If you want to destroy an economy a great way would be to prevent firms from restructuring, if they don’t they’ll just go bust. This would likely have happened in to the factory in Dunedin if Cadbury hadn’t done what it has.
Anyway, I didn’t actually get into the economic argument about the closure, I rebutted Billiot’s claims about the trends within the economy as a whole and stated the Alliance offered nothing more than the WP or RAM. Billiot states the Alliance’s opposition to free market and free trade policies of the current left-wing govt so it’s no jump to lump the Alliance with the WP and RAM.
Frankly what does the Alliance offer that RAM and the WP don’t? And if the Alliance is a “broad inclusive party of the Left” why has it failed to work with these new comers?
As for my using part-time data, it’s pretty much the only proxy for non-standard/precarious employment available from official figures – if you’ve got a better one tell me. If, however, as Billot claims that secure jobs are evaporating it would be pretty unlikely that the part-time/full-time balance would stay virtually unchanged since the end of centralised bargaining if such a trend existed.
If the Alliance does have any evidence to back up Billot’s claims about economic and labour market trends, please, post them here and prove me wrong.
Justin // 26 August, 2008 at 12:44 am |
Hi Chris (I think),
I find it hysterical that you used the word Marxist twice, and the ’scary’ red ogres of RAM and the Workers Party, in one broad brush stroke to paint a politically convienient facade of the Alliance party. I am a member of the Alliance, and I have been since 1997, yet I have never had any dealings with RAM or the Workers Party. I don’t know their exact politics but I think they are from Auckland and hold leftist views of some description. Good for them. I don’t see the relevance of using them to describe the Alliance. That would be like using the Libertarian party to describe the views of the National Party to make some point about National policy. Your argument is this: the workers party are openly Marxist, therefore the Alliance are Marxists and everything they say is irrelevant. I am sure this makes it easier for you to make your argument, but everyone can see what your doing.
As for being a right wing parrot; the things you are saying are not new. Its funny how right wingers rail against leftist as being ideologues and utopian, when right wingers hold the ‘free’ market model up to be some omniscient principle that when left to its own devicies creates an economic paradise for all.
This is plainly false when we see wars waged for resources, massive environmental destruction, and the turning upside down of local economies by companies looking to make a quick dollar. If we allowed a free unrestrained market economy to exist, then we could buy crack cocaine at the local dairy, burn every inch of rainforest to graze cattle, and use poor people as bike racks and foot stools.
However most rational people admit that these things are undesirable, so our elected representatives intervene in the ‘free’ market to stop these morally bad things. If we then conceed that governments should stop these bad things, and that people being unemployed is indeed a bad thng, then we would be compelled to try to stop that wouldn’t we?
You said that cutting jobs is a sign that the company is profiting; well in my opinion a company isn’t just about returning dividends to shareholders. Communities depend on and grow around these companies and the industries involved, and in a sense there is a ‘community ownership’ . The people in those communities make those products and then in turn take their wages into the world and buy these products, thus making the businesses in a community successful. You believe the interests of the shareholder are paramount, whereas I believe the interests of the community are paramount and deserve to be protected. Just as that paragon of free trade, the USA, protects its farmers with meat and agriculture tariffs,
; and the way Australia protects its car manufacturing and fruit growing industries with tariffs. Wow their economies are so much poorer than New Zealands, because we just let our industries die.
Look, I lived in Dunedin for 30 years and I worked at Cadburies over 2 of those years, and to see Fisher and Paykel leave the town because the market allowed them to make more profit elsewhere was wrong, and this is the thin edge of the wedge for Cadbury’s. A lot of the workers at Cadbury’s have worked there for a very long time, they are dedicated and loyal to that job, where is the loyalty of the company? The reward of making a company profitable, is getting sacked. That is wrong.
Dunedin will lose all of its productive capacity if global capitalism has its way. We will become a service economy that imports our products from the exploited workers of …wherever. Government intervention is not a communist plot, as you portray it to be, all advanced capitalist countries do it to varying degrees, it just so happens that countries with alot of government intervention, like Sweden and Norway, also always top standard of living and quality of life surveys. (trust me, look it up)
As for your use of data to prove a point unrelated to that data… um …. enough said. Qualitatively I can tell you, with employers like Fisher and Paykel, leaving Dunedin, and the meat works and Cadbury’s downsizing, the pillars of secure blue collar work in the community are going, and we end up in casualised jobs, of the type we now have with sub-contracting in the forestry industry in the region.
Your initial blog may have been only glib regurgitated standard economic theory, but actual people are involved in this unfortunate circumstance and they all have families.
Thank you for the chat.
Cheers
Justin // 26 August, 2008 at 12:46 am |
Sorry, yes you are correct I am the very same Justin who is on the Alliance List.
Remember to Party Vote Alliance Chris
Take care
justin
Matt Nolan // 26 August, 2008 at 2:11 pm |
“If we then conceed that governments should stop these bad things, and that people being unemployed is indeed a bad thng, then we would be compelled to try to stop that wouldn’t we?”
Because there is a trade-off. Trying to intervene may cause “another bad thing”.
“and the way Australia protects its car manufacturing and fruit growing industries with tariffs. Wow their economies are so much poorer than New Zealands, because we just let our industries die”
And the Australian consumer is stuck paying higher prices for vehicles and fruit as a result.
There economy outperforms ours because of other reasons – not because they protect marginal industries
“Your initial blog may have been only glib regurgitated standard economic theory, but actual people are involved in this unfortunate circumstance and they all have families.”
And the people you disadvantage with your protectionism also have families – and the people that can’t get jobs because labour laws exclude them from the workforce also have families.
Lots of people have families – and that is why we are interested in the trade-offs that are associated with policy, instead of trying to act morally superior to anyone who disagrees with us.
Victor Billot // 26 August, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
But it’s not about protectionism. It’s about a society which is democratic or a society where “the market” determines priorities, ie the interests of the minority at the top.
Labour laws may exclude some from the workforce. We don’t allow children to work in factories anymore. Children, for example, who made up the workforce in the pure market economy of 19th century Britain: and who still make up the workforce in some of the nations we engage in free trade deals with. Yes, those pesky labour laws which hold back profits and freedom (for the owners!) Oh, to let the market decide.
There may be economic costs associated with a fair and democratic society. Those costs can and should be distributed. There is no point having a society with a few millionaires and a large number of powerless, insecure workers. That’s not freedom. That’s not democracy.
I guess it comes down to: do you support free markets, or free people? Does the system control us – or do we control the system?
Matt Nolan // 26 August, 2008 at 5:01 pm |
“I guess it comes down to: do you support free markets, or free people? Does the system control us – or do we control the system?”
See, we are not disagreeing with that. However, there is a trade-off between redistribution and the economic pie.
I only see the Alliance discussing redistribution – and as a result, the party is implicitly assuming that the trade-off does not exist. I think this is an extreme assumption, which is why I disagree.
I respect your parties value judgments – but I was disappointed by the seemingly “morally superior tone” provided in some of the earlier comments.
“Yes, those pesky labour laws which hold back profits and freedom (for the owners!) Oh, to let the market decide.”
If you had read either this blog or my blog before you might realise that we are more balanced on these issues than your parties comments give us credit for.
“I guess it comes down to: do you support free markets, or free people? Does the system control us – or do we control the system?”
All types of market – no matter how free or how centrally planned have elements that reduce liberty. Surely, the best move is to avoid extremes – however, some of the Alliance’s policies are extreme central planning. As a result, how can you even pretend you are aiming to expand peoples liberties?
Richard // 26 August, 2008 at 9:28 pm |
Justin: indulge me in going a bit point by point.
in one broad brush stroke to paint a politically convienient facade of the Alliance party. ….. I am sure this makes it easier for you to make your argument, but everyone can see what your doing.
I not trying to slur the Alliance, I’m highlighting that the Alliance isn’t going to have electoral success as you are occupying the same space as the two Marxist minnows and this is underlined by your policy positions and rhetoric about the economy are very similar to their’s. Also RAM are rather disengenous about their Marxist roots so calling them Marxist twice is my opinion deserved.
As for being a right wing parrot; the things you are saying are not new. Its funny how right wingers rail against leftist as being ideologues and utopian, when right wingers hold the ‘free’ market model up to be some omniscient principle that when left to its own devicies creates an economic paradise for all.
…Your initial blog may have been only glib regurgitated standard economic theory
I didn’t say anything like that – I said that the Alliance offers no more than the WP and RAM and that the evidence didn’t support the release’s claims. All your comment on the evils of capitalism also underline the Alliance’s position out with the other two; not a main stream left view that you find with the Labour party or moderate unions like the EPMU, PSA or Finsec.
Some firms will always be having redundancies as technology and tastes change. It’s ultimately futile to try and protect jobs that are less profitable than others. It just restricts new industries from coming through and without that we’re all poorer. Loss making industries propped up be subsidy or protection ultimately prevent wealth creation and and divert govt resources away from other things. Farm subsidies are excellent example – would you suggest we reintroduce them here to get back all those jobs that they provided prior to the eighties ? Of course not it’d be daft – but you’re effectively suggesting we take that course of action now for Cadbury and F&P for things that in retrospect we wouldn’t do.
You said that cutting jobs is a sign that the company is profiting
Again, that’s not what I said. I said companies doing more with less is what you expect in an economy increasing it’s productivity.
And thank you for the chat as well – and good luck with the challenge to the broadcasting allocations. Small parties don’t get a fair go.
Richard (not Chris)
Richard // 26 August, 2008 at 9:39 pm |
Victor: Your suggestion that there’s a trade off between free markets and people’s freedom just doesn’t match up with reality. All of the world’s most democratic countries have market’s freer than what the Alliance would impose and there’s barely any point noting that those countries that are least free from poverty and the most undemocratic have don’t tend to have free markets.
Also, where are the stats to back up the claims in your press release about trends toward low wages and casualisation?
Richard // 26 August, 2008 at 9:44 pm |
Matt: It is a little ironic that those of us with a bit of faith in market mechanisms get accused of solely promoting the interests of the Scrooge McDucks and Mr Burns of the world by the people are first to argue for corporate welfare for unprofitable industry
Matt // 26 August, 2008 at 10:11 pm |
The Alliance has been going down hill ever since Big Jim left. Like the blog “Chris”, although the focus on helicopters is a bit creepy/nerdy.
Richard // 26 August, 2008 at 10:30 pm |
Jim didn’t leave the Alliance – the Alliance left him!
Actually that was the fourth helicopter related post the other day – I’ll have to cut down.
comradealastair // 27 August, 2008 at 12:06 am |
Just for the record, the Workers Party has branches in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, as well as an embryonic branch in Dunedin and members in other parts of the country. We’re not just in Auckland!
We’re currently going through our registration process with the Electoral Commission, so fingers crossed we get allowed over the mark.
And yes, our ideology is based on the writings of Marx, Engels and Lenin (as well as other great theorists and revolutionary leaders), and we are openly revolutionary socialists and staunchly anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist.
Be sure to vote for us during the elections!
http://workersparty.org.nz/vote-workers-party-2008/
Justin // 27 August, 2008 at 2:00 am |
My apologies to Richard for getting his name wrong I am new to this blogging thing, but if its ok with you Richard, you will forever be Chris to me. lol
Hi, Matt
I have to disagree with you in regards to the Australian economy. Yes there is a mining boom that is making the economy grow very rapidly and stimulating consumer demand, although interest rate rises have slowed this recently.
I conceed that the Australian economy out performs New Zealand’s because of their massive resources sector. But the fundamental principles of how to manage an economy are the same regardless of this. As you rightly say Australia is a high tax economy, but it is also an economy built on higher wages.
Stamp duty on houses, stamp duty on cars, GST, and heaven forbid even capital gains tax. These hit average aussies everyday, however the government redistributes these taxes with generous tax write offs (like home computers if you have kids), a baby bonus of around $7000 everytime you have a child, a first home owners grant of $14000. These, dare I say, Keyensian initiatives make Australia a very livable place. The cost to Australians for protecting local jobs through tariffs is off-set, by financial dividends for the citizenry.
Obviously every Australian does not work in mining, they still have people working at Macdonalds, collecting rubbish etc… But the minimum wage is something like $14.30, national wage awards for industries are still in effect, and even tho John Howard tried to destroy union membership with ‘work choices’, they are still strong in some sectors, and demand impressive penalty rates of pay. Hmmmm…. gee all of this sounds quite familiar, as if I recognise it from somewhere, oh yes thats right the New Zealand economy was based on these principles from 1936 until 1984. Why oh why did we give it all away?
thats right, so that the middle and upper classes could make a bit more money: that was so worth it. I am so glad now that I have 50 brands of shampoo to choose from, but that my working conditions are rubbish. And now 25 years later, the New Zealand economy is left stripped and dangling in the fickle breezezs of global capitalism, and our people; lacking decent productive job oportunities, and any sort of government return on their labour, head to foreign countries to make ends meet.
I am currently working in the Western Australian mining industry, as are a great many of my fellow New Zealanders, and the story from all of them is the same: New Zealand offers no way for working people to get ahead. Now if I suggest that New Zealand follows suit and raises wages, protects its industries like Australia, subsidises it’s industries like France and the USA, and offers financial benefits to working families, then you will scream ‘what about the inflation?’. The answer is this; we manage it like every other developed county, but we allow a larger allowable margin, so that we can stimulate the economy, protect jobs and make the system work for us, instead of being passive fodder for it.
Before you say anything about me living in Australia, let me say this: I am a heavy machine operator and work for me was drying up in my home, and obviously it has gotten worse since I left a year ago. If I had my way, I would be home in New Zealand, as would most New Zealanders working over here.
Now Richard (formally known as Chris),
I appreciate your thoughts, but please stop lumping my party in with these workers party Trots. I think Marx had a fair critique of capitalism ( as do a lot of non Marxist economists and sociologists) his citique framed our contemporary understanding of the relations of production, but I don’t buy his historical materialism. He ripped the dialectic off Hegel and it was rubbish when Hegel said it. I am a socialist however and I would appreciate people distinguishing between the two. Socialism pre dated Marx, (he co-opted the term, but it is not his!), it is applied to everyone from social democrats to anarchist (and everyone knows how anarchist feel about Marxists, and I don’t blame them). In my opinion Marx is the opium of the Marxist, no better than Neo-liberal, New Right faschists….blind to reason.
So I still don’t know why you bring up the workers party when discussing the Alliance, they seek the destruction of capitalism, the Alliance seeks to make capitalism more humane. Participatory democracy was devised to protect the capitalist system, why would a party set on destroying it stand for parliament? Social justice and equality are our goals, and I don’t understand why anyone would argue with these as worthy objectives. When the alternative is personal greed, and passive involvement in a destructive global money grab. Lets take control!
P.s. Chris I think you’re starting to grow on me.
Victor Billot // 27 August, 2008 at 6:10 am |
I think the essential difference here is that some people see the economy as separate from human beings, a kind of independent divine entity comprised of eternal laws, whereas a democratic socialist such as myself sees the current economic structure as a human produced system that now controls the humans who have created it.
I don’t believe the free market economy is sustainable either socially or environmentally. While it can be extremely productive, it is also unstable, destructive, unequal and reduces people to the status of economic units who are reduced to “slaves of the market.”
The free market on the large scale concentrates wealth and power so decisions are made in favour of a small minority class who have accumulated this wealth and power.
The damage caused to communities and individuals by the constant insecurity of increasing competition and economic pressure creates a damaged society, and fosters an attitude of selfish individualism, which expresses itself in an increasingly atomized, brutal and decaying social structure.
Public goods such as education, health and infrastructure are constantly undermined in favour of private goods (grotesque and ostentatious consumerism, plasma screens, SUVs, designer lifestyles, pet grooming, cosmetic surgery and other useful innovations.)
This is now working in tandem with the collapse of the global ecosystem, with climate change, toxic pollution, a water crisis, overfishing and industrial farming, soil loss, biodiversity loss, and resource depletion.
(As George Carlin said, the world is doing fine, it’s the human race who are f*cked.)
It is as if people are in denial – as if these things are not happening, or once confronted by the facts, we can’t do anything about it, so lets just continue down the road to perdition.
The Alliance offers a strong critique of the current system. Our philosophical and economic approach is grounded in a long history of humanistic, democratic insight and struggle, drawing on a diverse range of ideas. While it may seem a minority view in today’s debased political culture, I wouldn’t spend my time supporting it if I thought it was unrealistic. Unrealistic is thinking that things can continue as they are.
In closing, thanks for providing the opportunity to debate these issues on your blog. It appears while we may differ you are prepared to discuss things in a rational way. If you look at some of the blogs around, I would say that there is a neo-fascist ideology that has taken hold of a segment of young, white. middle class males in New Zealand that goes beyond simple conservatism. Thankfully this blog does not appear to be one of those.
Matt Nolan // 27 August, 2008 at 9:41 am |
Hi Justin
“Before you say anything about me living in Australia”
That would be a troll thing to say – don’t worry I wouldn’t say anything about that.
Personally, I am all for labour market mobility – I wouldn’t say anything against anyone who picks up work overseas.
With the Australia issue it is important to remember that they have deeper capital markets than we do – the higher level of capital allow them to pay higher wages and have higher growth. For me that is the essential issue, if we were interested in comparing growth performances.
“I think the essential difference here is that some people see the economy as separate from human beings, a kind of independent divine entity comprised of eternal laws, whereas a democratic socialist such as myself sees the current economic structure as a human produced system that now controls the humans who have created it.”
I don’t think anyone sees the market as “separate from human beings” – the “market” is simply voluntary trade between individuals.
I think a fundamental difference between our way of viewing things stems from the fact that you view things in a holistic light – while I’m a methodological individualist.
Ultimately, I believe holism provides us an easier way to view things that are difficult to illustrate in an individualistic sense – but social action does stem from individual action initially.
We believe that you have to understand “markets” before we can try to solve a number of the problems you discuss here (such as over-fishing). This is because a market is merely trade between individuals – ignoring it and moving to an arbitrary unit like the “community” (instead of the individual) does not provide us with a full picture of how society works.
Idiot/Savant // 28 August, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
And to haul this back to the point: once upon a time the Alliance was a rather broader party than it is now, certainly left of Labour, but not out there on the fringes like it is today. If they want to get back into Parliament, rather than just being a left-wing confessional party like the WP, then they need to recapture that broader appeal. This means talking meaningfully to people other than their activists. Unfortunately, though, I think that pool of betrayed and disatisfied lefties which provided so much support in the 90’s has dried up, and has either gone back to Labour, or to the Greens.
I’m also surprised by Justin’s comment that they’ve never talked to RAM. The two parties would seem to have a great deal in common and the natural thing to do would be to pool their support base. But the problem with self-proclaimed “broad left” parties is that they usually aren’t (the fact that we have three such parties is pretty good evidence of this). Instead, its just a false claim to popularity, from groups whose ideology seems to be trapped in the C19th and utterly irrelevant to modern people. Now, you can gibber about the continuing relevance of Marx and his intellectual descendants today all you want, but unless you can actually convince a large proportion of society of that (or at least avoid having them react to you in the same way they react to Jehovah’s Witnesses), then I’d say that your project is pretty much doomed.
Tim B // 28 August, 2008 at 9:55 pm |
In the interests of accuracy I should point out that WP has never claimed to be a “broad left” party – our politics are explicitly anti-capitalist and unlike groups such as RAM we don’t water down our politics or use patronising euphemisms like “grassroots folk” just to try and score a few more votes.
It’s true the audience for revolutionary ideas in NZ in 2008 is miniscule, but that doesn’t detract from their veracity.
Richard // 29 August, 2008 at 12:02 am |
I/S has stolen my thunder on why I mentioned the Alliance in the same breath as the WP and RAM. Tim’s also provided my reasoning for why I’m so keen to use the word Marxist next to RAM – they won’t but they should.
Regarding the options offered by the Alliance relative to an unfettered free market; I feel it’s a somewhat off target argument in the same way we don’t need to privatise health and education to avoid the situation North Korea or Cuba are in as a result of their central planning. Even Act’s policies avoid the free market excesses that the Alliance uses as the examples of why their policy prescriptions are required. Avoiding rampant deforestation and Rio style slums doesn’t require the government to prescribe how many jobs there should be at the chocolate factory.
And lastly thanks for keeping it civil everyone.
Andrew W // 3 September, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
There’s a major difference between ‘prescribing the number of jobs in a chocolate factory’ and setting up the economy so that the transitional costs in relocating jobs are supplemented by a certain amount of protectionist buffering against international market fluctuations.
As for the concept that everything’s more expensive over there, my major purchase items were fruit and veges – I found them incredibly cheap. Cafe’s were about the same as NZ (not incl exchange rate), wages seemed to be much better, power was 3 times cheaper. And the telecom users group reckons NZers are being screwed on cellphone deals.
I’ll pay a bit more tax for that deal. But then somebody will come up with another “proxy” that they reckon demonstrates their ideological point.
Oliver Woods // 12 September, 2008 at 11:45 am |
Richard, the reason I didn’t bother initially responding was unfortunately shown to be accurate in your other posts.
You seem to be inclined toward hyperbolic assertions that are akin to me trying to draw links between the National Party and the libertarian extreme right.
I am the Co-Leader of the RAM candidates group (i.e. RAM’s joint non-administrative leader) and I am not a Marxist.
In fact, while some in RAM come from Marxist’s backgrounds, the vast majority of our National Executive are not Marxists.
I believe in a mixed economy, as does RAM’s official party policy. A mixed economy, Richard, is not a Stalinist central planning experiment. We never have said that we want anything like central planning in NZ – central planning is disastrous, just like neo-liberal monetarist economics.
Most of RAM are actually social democratic, if you could put an ‘ideology’ down on us. Social democratic in the sense of Michael Joseph Savage, John Maynard Keynes, Brian Easton, Friedrich List, all those people you probably think are Marxists.
But I guess to you Richard social democracy, limited capital controls, a more progressive taxation system and state ownership of vital infrastructure is reds under the bed, Marxists-in-the-closet stuff?
Richard // 13 September, 2008 at 11:11 am |
Yes Oliver, like many recreational writers I err towards hyperbole now and then, and it seems that I am not alone.
Your assertion that I probably think Keynes and Easton are Marxists is more hyperbolic than anything I’ve said in this post or my comments. Likewise, your guess that I think more progressive taxation, state ownership of infrastructure, etc, is reds under the beds stuff is an equally baseless and simply a silly assertion. Your condescending, and again hyperbolic, explanation that a mixed economy is not Stalinism does you no credit either, there’s nothing I’ve said above that would suggest that’s anything close to what I believe.
Quite frankly your initial response was better suited to a 13yr old’s Bebo site – calling someone a tool is just childish. You’d do well to follow the example of the Alliance and WP posters above, they seem like reasonable people.
With regard to RAM, I don’t see Marxists in the closet. I see them, as you have noted, as part of your national executive and as your party’s founding members. If we’re discussing a National/ Libertarianz comparison, it’s worth noting that the Libertarianz Party wouldn’t regard any senior National Party MP as ideologically acceptable while Grant Morgan and other RAM members would appear to fit in fine amongst the overtly Marxist Workers Party, notwithstanding the factional disputes so common amongst the far left.
Matt Nolan // 15 September, 2008 at 3:33 pm |
“Most of RAM are actually social democratic, if you could put an ‘ideology’ down on us. Social democratic in the sense of Michael Joseph Savage, John Maynard Keynes, Brian Easton, Friedrich List, all those people you probably think are Marxists.”
Keynes! Keynes was not a social democrat (not in the way I think is being inferred) – why do so many people on the far left believe he is the alternative left of the economics discipline.
Have any of these people actually read the general theory?
I am sure that a case could be created that could paint Keynes as a “social democrat” – however, this involves stretching the definition of social democrat so widely that it encompasses the views of most people.
Personally, I would call Keynes a social liberal.
Richard // 17 September, 2008 at 12:00 am |
Then again, some on the far right think that the moral of the Wealth of Nations is every man for himself.
Matt Nolan // 17 September, 2008 at 10:15 am |
“Then again, some on the far right think that the moral of the Wealth of Nations is every man for himself.”
Not just those nutters on the far right – people on the far left seem to think that as well.
They should read the Theory of Moral Sentiments, or even actually read the Wealth of nations
The problem with attaching an a political stripe on any economist is difficult – as economic policy is not social policy. Keynes the economists is actually a very different man to Keynes the policy analyst – although it is difficult to understand one without looking at the other.
Keynes helped to evolve the ideas of economics by focusing on issues classical economists had not – I like to think that modern economics is built on a base that involves classical and Keynesian concepts.
Idiot/Savant // 18 September, 2008 at 2:41 pm |
The problem with attaching an a political stripe on any economist is difficult – as economic policy is not social policy.
And yet somehow, it seems to end up that way, despite all your disclaimers.
Matt Nolan // 18 September, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
“And yet somehow, it seems to end up that way, despite all your disclaimers.”
Tell you the truth, I was wrong – I shouldn’t have said economic policy sorry.
I meant, economic analysis is not social policy – all economists should be in the role of doing “economic analysis”, but I’m not sure they are the people that should be dictating policy.
Analysis is a tool to help guide policy – not the way of of determining it. (insofar as it leaves room for normative assumptions to be put into it, which then leads to policy)
Going back to your quote though – just because people use economic analysis to promote policies you don’t like doesn’t mean that it is the economic analysis that is wrong. In fact, it is more likely to mean that the value judgments the user added to the economic analysis were different to the value judgments you hold. Economic theory is there to “frame” issues . it is descriptive, not prescriptive.
Richard // 20 September, 2008 at 5:52 pm |
In terms of economic analysis and policy making, I’ve a very favourable view of economists. The consideration of ‘efficient allocation of resources’ gets banged into economists more so than for students of most other disciplines.
I often find myself cringing when some piece of analysis by health researchers or sociologists is accompanied by some policy recommendation that clearly has been thought through in terms of whether it’s in any way less costly than the benefits it will produce. Certainly, however, there are a few economists out there who have trouble allowing political or social concerns affect the any recommendations they may make from their analysis.
EDIT: The Onion does it again. Obama Promises To Stop America’s Shitty Jobs From Going Overseas
Matt Nolan // 23 September, 2008 at 1:02 pm |
“Certainly, however, there are a few economists out there who have trouble allowing political or social concerns affect the any recommendations they may make from their analysis.”
Indeed – however, the distinction I often try to make is the one between the economic method (which should be an objective tool) and economists (who are ultimately as subjective as anyone else in society).
When someone uses economic tools to frame an issue then we have a transparent way of setting up an issue – however, whenever we make any policy conclusions we are adding some other subjective element. This is why I was so blatently wrong when I said economic policy – as policy in of itself must have a subjective bent.
This is why economists hardly ever agree, even though they all share the same set of analytical models.
Excuse me though – I’m rambling again