OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Liberal Versus Conservative

Entry 1388, on 2012-05-15 at 20:50:18 (Rating 3, Politics)

I know many people who are proud to be conservatives and use the word "liberal" as a sort of insult. I guess conservatives do form their own little in-groups and rejecting outsiders is just part of that mind-set, but I should be careful to not be guilty of the same mistake myself. So let's have a look at the attributes of the two groups and do some comparisons.

First some definitions...

Conservative (adjective): holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

Liberal (adjective): open to new behaviour or opinions and willing to discard traditional values, favouring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform.

There is a bit of a trap here though. The term "liberal" can be applied in both the social and economic realm. There isn't necessarily much of a link between liberal political and social views and liberal economic views. In fact many people with liberal economic views are very much in the conservative political camp. They want to increase economic freedom while reducing it everywhere else.

But that aside, conservatives generally want to minimise change or even move back to a "better time" in the past, and liberals want to move forward and push through change, especially in social areas.

So in many ways it gets down to an argument over what many people instinctively think is true: that things were better in the past than they are now. A common conservative opinion is that things were better when they were young and liberalisation of society has made things much worse since then.

Of course, many people think their childhood was better but that is most likely just because they were younger and had less of the problems most adults suffer from. If you had asked adults at the time they were young you would have got a similar response.

Could it be that every new generation is worse than the one before? It seems unlikely, so a better approach might be to look at real, measurable, objective facts to establish whether life in general is getting better or worse as society "progresses".

Lifespan would be an obvious one and thanks to scientific advances and generally better standards of living in most countries that is improving greatly. The global world average life expectancy has increased from 31 years to 62 years in the last 100 years. Of course that varies greatly depending on where you live: from 32 years in Swaziland to 83 years in Japan.

What about violence? Despite many people's initial assumptions the world is not getting more violent. There is good evidence to indicate that deaths due to wars are decreasing over time and even violence due to crime is less now despite the assumption of many that it is worse. Again, this depends partly on where you live but the overall trend seems certain.

Most people would agree that work conditions, working hours, general safety, and many other factors have all improved so why would anyone want to stop this progress or even go back to an earlier time?

There seems to be some sort of general feeling that "morality" today isn't what it was. People are less religious, less patriotic, less dedicated to their families, and other nebulous ideas. These ideas are quite subjective and difficult to comment on, but I would say look at the real world consequences - those things I mentioned above - and it looks like morality in a real-world sense is increasing rather than decreasing.

But the lack of support for conservative ideas maybe shouldn't be too surprising. There are clear indications that conservatives have trouble with accepting reality (please note that this is not an absolute statement: there are plenty of liberals who are almost as bad and there are some conservatives who are fairly realistic).

Which group rejects evolution? Conservatives. Which clings to outdated religious ideas? Conservatives. Which can't accept well established science such as climate change? Conservatives. Which believes in all sorts of new-age nonsense? Liberals! Yes, I know these are generalisations but they are supported by real data and I don't think they can be ignored.

Change doesn't always lead to things getting better but that is the clear trend. Anyone who wishes for a return to the "good old days" is probably just reacting to a nostalgic emotion rather than basing that wish on reality. Generally conservatives' beliefs are wrong and they undoubtedly hold back progress for the rest of us.

So far from being an insult, being labelled a "liberal" should be embraced as a compliment. Liberals are responsible for the gains human civilisation has made over thousands of years and that's really something to be proud of.

Comment 1 (3033) by SBFL on 2012-05-16 at 10:30:09: (view recent only)

Quite a good post considering, but from the 3rd to last paragraph onwards clearly OJB couldn't resist his extreme bent.

Putting that aside its not a bad overview. I for one am economically liberal (personal responsibility, minimal govt control) yet socially conservative (family and societal consideration, not self-interest).

OJB mentions my type in his 4th paragraph above. Financial and social issues are not particularly related so the absolute terms "conservative" or "liberal" can't be assumed to mean one thing or the other and I think OJB makes this point.

But OJB disagrees with my take on both the economic and social aspects. He wants to regress on economic matters (the good ol days of unions and inefficient state ownership) yet espouses "progress" on social issues (religion is evil, lets do our own thing).

He is entitled to his views, as am I.

Comment 2 (3034) by OJB on 2012-05-16 at 10:42:51:

The reason I want to "regress" economically but "progress" in other areas is because of what works! Clearly (for the reasons mentioned above) we are better off after years of social progress but are we better off after economic "progress"? The world is a mess (economically) with constant financial crises, bail-outs of big corporations, off-shore slave labour, environmental exploitation, austerity programs, etc.

So I'm simply saying the neo-liberal economic experiment has failed. let's go back to a more moderate system. I don't want unions to have too much control but currently they have too little. We need some sort of more balanced system.

Comment 3 (3036) by SBFL on 2012-05-16 at 10:58:07:

It's true that the developed world is in a bit of a slump currently mostly thanks to the idiots who run banks and/or free spending governments but conversely the opposite is true in the developing world > poverty is becoming a thing of the past. Capitalism is not ideal in all contexts in all times but as a long term system it works well because it mirrors human behaviour: incentives and disincentives and all that. For that state to become involved is only to distort or delay then inevitable and a logical OJB should know this.

Comment 4 (3038) by SBFL on 2012-05-16 at 11:15:00:

Question: You mention the world is a mess with austerity programs (amongst others). Why is an austerity program bad? I am sure no govt wants to implement this but it sometimes becomes a necessity in order to save the country from default (due to over-spending from recent previous years).

Shouldn't you focus on the source of the problem instead of the corrective action? Who is going to pay? Who? The indignados in Spain protest at austerity, but none of them can say who will pay...who? I'll let you in on a little secret: money doesn't grow on trees.

Comment 5 (3039) by OJB on 2012-05-16 at 11:17:16:

In fact I don't disagree with capitalism entirely but I do think it rewards the wrong sort of behaviour: greed, short-term gain, narrow perspectives, etc. For that reason it needs to be tightly controlled. The problems with giving large corporations too much freedom are obvious. Ad the fact that they need to be rescued by the very system they argue against is deeply ironic! I think incentives and disincentives are great but capitalism gives them for the wrong behaviours.

Comment 6 (3041) by SBFL on 2012-05-16 at 11:25:09:

Strangely I think we broadly agree here. Capitalism is the best system overall (not perfect) but it needs to be regulated in the areas where it can get out of control. Mind you, governments choosing to save banks is not capitalism, rather the opposite in fact.

Comment 7 (3044) by OJB on 2012-05-16 at 11:42:59:

Whether capitalism is the best system is open to debate but let's just assume it is at the moment. We agree then on the basics but it seems that we disagree on how much intervention is necessary. I would argue for more and you less. Obviously there is less separating us politically than might be first assumed!

I agree that in a pure capitalism system the banks should be allowed to fail. Unfortunately that isn't really an option, is it? Why not? because pure capitalism doesn't work!

Comment 8 (3046) by SBFL on 2012-05-16 at 11:52:44:

Yes I am sure the level of intervention is a differentiating point but probably also academic. Maybe not that much difference here. We righties say let the banks fail! But it is never that simple. (L&R) Governments save banks simply to avoid the fallout should they fail. Sometimes the fallout can be catastrophic to the national economy (apparently..think of the investors, not the CEOs). I prefer the 'live and learn' approach though, it's best for the long term.

Comment 9 (3050) by OJB on 2012-05-16 at 12:15:25:

Unfortunately in the real world allowing the banks to fail would have been disastrous. I know that according to libertarian political theory it is the correct response but libertarians (along with the left) need to learn to compromise. It's the blind following of a political agenda which I really object to.

The best solution is somewhere in the middle where corporations, unions, the rich, the poor, the public sector, the private sector, business, arts and science all have some political control. Currently we just trust business to get it right. That will never happen.

Comment 10 (3054) by SBFL on 2012-05-16 at 12:23:44:

Now artists and scientists are experts on financial issues? Yes, give the thespian political control on such matters! Did I ever accuse you of being a dreamer or an idealist?

Comment 11 (3056) by OJB on 2012-05-16 at 12:26:10:

You really should read my post on logical fallacies when I do it. Start with "straw man"!

Comment 12 (3060) by SBFL on 2012-05-16 at 12:32:11:

I did read your (current) post completely, but I was referring to you previous comment. Is this not allowed?

Comment 13 (3061) by OJB on 2012-05-16 at 12:35:50:

The reference to straw man was my way of saying you are arguing against a position I do not hold.

Economics and politics are about more than just "financial issues". Economics (should) encompass environmentalism, sociology, and many other areas which business people are clueless about. Just letting business interests run riot like we do will lead to disasters, not the least of which is global warming - and please, please, don't tell me you're a GW denier! :)

Comment 14 (3064) by SBFL on 2012-05-16 at 12:45:20:

"The reference to straw man was my way of saying you are arguing against a position I do not hold."

Hmm really, you said "The best solution [to austerity] is somewhere in the middle where corporations...arts and science all have some political control."

Not strawman.

Then you said "Economics (should) encompass environmentalism," blah blah...good, then by that rationale environmentalism (should) encompass economics. Do you agree? Or is your thinking one-way only?

Comment 15 (3066) by OJB on 2012-05-16 at 12:50:17:

Giving art and science greater political power is not the same as "...artists and scientists are experts on financial issues? Yes, give the thespian political control on such matters!". Not even close.

I absolutely agree that environmentalism should encompass economics. I am a moderate on these matters. I just think at the moment (especially in place like NZ where a conservative government is in control) the balance of power has gone away too far in favour of business.

Comment 16 (3069) by SBFL on 2012-05-16 at 12:57:33:

So you admit you were playing the strawman card since the topic was on economic matters. Please stick to the subject if you want to retain credibility on your own blog.

Comment 17 (3070) by OJB on 2012-05-16 at 13:03:04:

Did you say "retain credibility". You mean I have some? :)

My oriental statement was: "The best solution is somewhere in the middle where corporations, unions, the rich, the poor, the public sector, the private sector, business, arts and science all have some political control. Currently we just trust business to get it right. That will never happen."

It was you who narrowed the subject to economics.

Comment 18 (3075) by SBFL on 2012-05-18 at 09:55:40:

Well you do retain a sense of humour. Good to know.

Well I will acknowledge that all those parties you mention should have some sort of influence politically as each party is a member of society, but I think they are to different degrees. E.g. Science and arts have their areas but their say in areas outside their realm can only be limited naturally.

Going back to economics, does a government let a bank fail (and thus the stakeholders suffer as investing in that bank was their choice, even as mere depositors) or does the govt prop it up to the detriment of the taxpayers who did not choose to invest in that bank? What is the fallout of either scenario?

I say let the incompetent banks fail. What do you say? By stringing the failurists along can only mean prolonging the pain as we are seeing in Europe today. What do you say? Tighter rules absolutely makes sense, but it seems a bit to late for the failurists today...

Comment 19 (3081) by OJB on 2012-05-18 at 13:00:14:

Everyone is affected by economic policy so everyone should have input into it. Can the complete shambles we have now after listening to ideologically driven economists possibly get any worse as a result?

Regarding the failure of banks. The reason they cannot be allowed to fail is because they are too big and the downstream effects would be disastrous (not just for shareholders). What we need is regulation to stop them getting too big so that they can be allowed to fail.

Comment 20 (3086) by SBFL on 2012-05-19 at 08:09:37:

Regulation is too little too late after governments of late have joined in on the party. But what to do now? I'm not sure the know how of theatre actors can contribute much to the solution (following your comment everyone should have input).

Comment 21 (3091) by OJB on 2012-05-19 at 13:30:34:

The problem is that because of libertarian ideology there has been too little regulation and that has directly lead to this disaster. We need strong regulation to avoid future problems of the same sort. As far as fixing the problems we have now I'm not sure but more of the same (for example austerity measures) is not the answer!

Comment 22 (3096) by SBFL on 2012-05-22 at 12:43:06:

So you've abandoned the actors/artists argument now. Interesting.
We already tried stimulus in 2008/2009, it failed.

Comment 23 (3101) by OJB on 2012-05-22 at 17:46:06:

No I haven't abandoned the idea that we need a greater variety of people in politics. I do accept your point though that they have to put the effort in to get there. There is also the point that when/if they get there they will be stomped on by the party machine anyway so what's the point?

Regarding stimulus. I can't recall any serious effort being put in to this. Can you refresh my memory?

Comment 24 (3106) by SBFL on 2012-06-08 at 11:36:04:

Even the Greens "stomp" on their detractors so we agree that the party machine rules.

Stimulus was tired in the US. Failed. In some European counties. Failed. Well, mane one place where it has worked as planned....

Comment 25 (3113) by OJB on 2012-06-08 at 13:20:42:

Stimulus failed in the US? Really? I've heard many commentators say that it worked well and was one thing which stopped the collapse getting even worse. I guess it depends on which economist you listen to. I've always been suspicious of economics!

Comment 26 (3115) by SBFL on 2012-06-08 at 13:30:58:

Are you kidding me? This is a joke right?

Comment 27 (3116) by OJB on 2012-06-08 at 13:34:10:

Errr, no. I know there have been a few high profile failures where the stimulus money ended up being wasted but I think overall many experts agree the overall aim was achieved. Again, it depends on who you listen to and what their bias is. Obviously if you listen to right wing commentators they will never admit any Obama policy worked no matter how good it was. We both agree politics in the US is a mess, right?

Comment 28 (3120) by SBFL on 2012-06-08 at 13:47:41:

Yes, point taken on US politics. It ain't pretty. But honestly, I didn't hear of a raring success from any politicians about the stimulus. Why? The statistics don't lie. Well intentioned, but a failure, sorry to say.

Comment 29 (3124) by OJB on 2012-06-08 at 14:10:36:

What about this...

quote

Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs
Updated 8/30/2010 5:12 PM
By David J. Lynch, USA TODAY

Amid mounting signs that the economic recovery is faltering, one potential remedy seems out of the question: a booster shot of government spending.

The White House says the multiyear $814 billion stimulus program passed by Congress in 2009 boosted employment by 2.5 million to 3.6 million jobs and raised the nation's annual economic output by almost $400 billion. A recent study by two prominent economists generally agrees, crediting the pump-priming with averting "what could have been called Great Depression 2.0."

unquote

Honestly, this austerity thing is just a total deception by the right. Here's their plan: increase employment by cutting jobs, increase economic activity by cutting it, fix the deficit by getting less tax income. None of it makes sense! Yet so many people have been sucked in by this nonsense.

Comment 30 (3130) by SBFL on 2012-06-08 at 14:37:39:

If your personal household finances were like the state of the government today, you'd be applying austerity left, right and centre. Now, all of a sudden it makes sense. Wake up!

Comment 31 (3135) by OJB on 2012-06-08 at 15:32:53:

So despite me offering a real news article from a fairly respected source quoting real economists all you have is a pathetic and meaningless analogy? Wake up!

Comment 32 (3142) by SBFL on 2012-06-14 at 10:04:07:

Ok, time to recap. We can all copy/paste opinion articles supporting our point of view (as you said, it depends on who you listen to) but in reality the US stimulus hasn't been the raring success it was supposed to be...but neither has it been a failure. Today in 2012, the US is managing (under Obama), without the growth it would like to have, but also without the downturn many have predicted. It is important to all that it struggles along for now and puts itself in a position to pick up when circumstances allow. Do we agree on this?

So as for the the US, lets see it amble through the current crisis with its messed-up politics and hope the world economy is all the better for it.

For those economies closer to home (not the US), I am fully supportive of austerity measures, not because it apparently hits hard but because it can only hope to save the finances of any sovereign nations. And if this makes it through then all the better for the citizens - poor and rich alike. Default is catastrophic and perpetual borrowing is not the solution.

Comment 33 (3149) by OJB on 2012-06-14 at 23:31:17:

Yes, we agree the US could have done better but also could have done a lot worse. Not sure what to say about the second. I disagree with your third comment: austerity is not the answer and it most certainly is not good for the poor - quite the contrary. Obviously no one thinks "perpetual borrowing" is the solution but borrowing should not be completely rejected either.

Comment 34 (3161) by Sean on 2012-06-16 at 08:47:37:

So if austerity (cuts) nor more borrowing is not the answer, what is?

We must live within our means. This is pretty fundamental, but it seems you have other ideas. Enlighten us.

Comment 35 (3165) by OJB on 2012-06-16 at 11:49:16:

I didn't say borrowing wasn't the answer, I said *perpetual* borrowing wasn't the answer. Borrowing is a tool which should be used when appropriate. And at this point it is appropriate when used sensibly.

Living within our means can be interpreted many ways. Giving the rich huge tax breaks while winding down public services and taking even more from the poor is not an option we should be considering. That isn't living within our means, that's just making the whole economic system worse.

Comment 36 (3174) by SBFL on 2012-06-30 at 07:31:42:

OJB said "I didn't say borrowing wasn't the answer..". So you do say borrowing is the answer? How does that work when you don't have the means to repay?

You mistakenly correlate tax breaks with public service cuts. Tax reform to enable growth (increased tax intake) and removing non-value-adding publicly funded sectors are mutually exclusive. A good government does both: promotes economic growth and cuts public waste.

Comment 37 (3180) by OJB on 2012-06-30 at 14:14:12:

Borrowing can be an answer, depending on the circumstances. Currently, with low interest rates and the need to stimulate the economy it seems like a reasonable option and the government is borrowing significantly, isn't it?

Tax breaks lead to less government income, which leads to the need for less spending, which leads to cuts. Is that not how it goes?

If the types of tax reforms we have had really resulted in growth and a better outcome for everyone I would be more positive about them. But, of course, they don't. Just the opposite, in fact.

Comment 38 (3186) by SBFL on 2012-07-03 at 09:58:52:

"depending on the circumstances"...says it all really. Ask Spain what their borrowing rate is..? Or Greece if you fancy? Or NZs even in a time of national debt? Yes, dear lefties, keep on borrowing more. That is surely the answer.

Cuts to waste can only always be good. Who disagrees?

Comment 39 (3195) by OJB on 2012-07-03 at 15:12:12:

Why do you equate the political left with borrowing? Have you looked at the amount the current government is borrowing? And yes, it does depend on the circumstances.

What exactly is a "cut to waste"? It's hard to agree or disagree with something with no real meaning. And I guess there would be some debate on what is wasteful and what isn't, if that's what you are getting at.

Comment 40 (3204) by SBFL on 2012-07-06 at 10:40:00:

OJB asked: Why do you equate the political left with borrowing? Because the election promises of any left party is to borrow more. Do you need any more evidence?

The argument should never initially be "cut to waste" but should be "justify the spend". Its an area the Left have no idea about. "Borrow and spend" is effectively the election manifesto of NZ Labour. There's noting left in their tank (mentally and financially).

Comment 41 (3210) by OJB on 2012-07-06 at 11:32:52:

Have you checked up in how much the current government is currently borrowing? Please compare this with the previous Labour government and get back to me.

Wow, you're anti-left rhetoric sounds just like what I hear from a genuine right wing nut job I sometimes debate with. Be careful! As the obvious inadequacies of the current government become more obvious it is too easy to slip into this way of thinking!

Comment 42 (3220) by SBFL on 2012-07-10 at 09:44:58:

Yes, and only because they are maintaining some of Labours initiatives (interest-free student loans, WFF). Do you disagree with this? Then please make a post telling National they should drop these. I can't wait.

Hehe, okay the previous comment got a bit rhetorical...some credit to Shearer who seems a bit more rational than Goff on the "borrow and spend" motif. Can't say the same of some of his caucus, but it's the leadership that ultimately directs the party, so it's in NZ's interest (if not National's) that Labour become more practical (and palatable). Lets see how things pan out there by 2014. Robertson is hungry in the wings from what I've read.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.