More on right vs left characterisations
June 12th, 2008 at 9:53 am by David FarrarI pinged Jordan yesterday for what I thought was a simplistic ascribing of selfishness to those who are not of the left. Jordan has done a clarification which I think reflects the situation better, even though I still disagree that the right want to constrain the poor.
If I was to attempt some generalisations it would be that the right focus too much on incentives and not enough on the short-term while the left do not focus enough on incentives and on the short-term over the long term.
To take one example – the widely disliked market rentals in the 1990s. If you look at the issue in terms of incentives and the long-term, having accommodation assistance delivered to low income families by way of supplement would be fairer than having your level of assistance decided by who your landlord is. It was never about making poor people pay more – in fact total assistance increased off memory.
But where National fell down is not looking at the short-term effects, in its desire to get the long-term incentives right. It was seen as callous for the plight of the family who suddenly had big rent increases on the property they had lived in for years.
I know of no-one in National who thinks the state does not have a role in helping low income families meet their living costs. But as I said what National may have been guilty of is being indifferent to the short-term pain imposed by its policies.
Likewise Labour often (in my opinion) looks at the band-aid solution rather than the core problem, which means they do stupid stuff such as interest-free student loans rather than more sensible ways to help students such as lower tertiary fees or increase allowances.
Another difference in world views tends to be the degree of faith or optimism in the ability of the state to fix problems. Views on the right tend to view the state as ranging from a necessary evil to competent in some areas, but not all. And views on the left probably range from competent in some areas but not all to favouring the state over the private sector at every opportunity.
This is why people on the left and right come up with different solutions (in my view) and different priorities. Not that one side are selfish and one side are not.
Related posts:
- Housing Policy
- $75/week for $1m state house
- Benefit Dependency
- Why the left should be against Labour’s housing policy
June 12th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Sorry David, you have fallen into the trap that the left do care. It is often believed that tyrants on the left like Mao, Stalin and Hitler had *good* intentions.
Vote:The true motive of the left is theft and hate.
That’s why they call us ‘rich pricks’.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:37 am
There’s very few people who enter politics with malevolent intentions. I couldn’t name you any. I don’t think intentions are a good criterion for attaining moral superiority for oneself.
Vote:June 12th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Unfortunately no comments over at Just Left. Let me firstly say that I agree in concept with some of what Jordan says – the right do believe in markets because we believe it gives the best long-term outcome, the left do believe that the market commoditises people, and that equality of outcome is important. That isn’t because one side or the other is evil, but that isn’t to say that one side or the other isn’t wrong.
I would argue that some of Jordan’s material is wrong. Let me go through his points.
This is not a statement of fact. It would be selfish if all the people who voted for these policies did so because they personally were going to gain from it. But I believe that most people who vote for these policies do so because they believe it is better for the country – that is not selfish. As noted on the previous thread by someone else, if I am a left wing beneficiary and I vote for increases to benefits, is that not selfish? Whether or not you can characterise politics as selfish depends on the intent of the person when they vote. It is easier when the person voting isn’t in a position to gain (say, a beneficiary voting right, or a millionaire voting left), but even where they are in a position to gain, it doesn’t follow that they are being selfish unless you know their intent.
This is a caricature of the policies of the right. The policies are generally about removing distortions. For example, ACT frequently are concerned about the effective marginal tax rates of those moving from a benefit into work – this doesn’t fit Jordan’s caricature. One thing that National could do that would completely screw Jordan’s viewpoint is to come out with a tax cut package that basically removes all tax for those earning under $30K, and does nothing else.
I’ll ignore his characterisation of left v’s right – it isn’t grossly unfair, there are some quibbles I have but nothing major.
On his base post, I have some issues too.
This is the point that the right make. You cannot organise these things better through central control – it has always and everywhere failed. Markets are the only practical way to do this, and Jordan’s and the left’s objection to markets means that they will never succeed in getting this right.
Poverty as defined by the left (relative poverty) can never be ended unless everyone is absolutely equal – equality of outcome. That is impossible in a modern economy, so Jordan’s belief that there is still more to be done is self-fulfilling. No matter how much income we redistribute there will always be more to do. Perhaps we should discuss whether this is desirable or useful? Perhaps we should think about absolute poverty instead, and work out what standard of living is a level at which we as a country should be concerned about?
Vote:June 12th, 2008 at 10:45 am
So Hitler was a tyrant on the ‘left’.
Vote:yeah and all those countries in europe occupied by the nazis the left just said such is life and got on with collaboration with the occupiers.
Las, you are an idiot
June 12th, 2008 at 11:01 am
1. “Caricature” politics is not solely the domain of the left. “Looney Greens, Tree-Hugging Hippies, Liberal Know-it-Alls, Communists, Feminazis, Bludgers”? What are these, if not caricatures? If you have such a hard line on caricatures, make sure it catches all those who use them.
2. Sometimes, if you lie down with dogs, you get fleas. When people like Ayn Rand preach “selfishness” as the route to salvation, how can you say you don’t think the right is selfish? You can’t conclusively say that at all – you can only say truthfully that with respect to yourself.
http://stairs.umd.edu/140/rand.html
Vote:June 12th, 2008 at 11:09 am
If we were only concerned with increasing our own standard of living, moving to Australia would be much simpler and more effective than supporting political parties and writing on blogs.
There are deep philosophical disagreements but they aren’t decisive. Even if I agreed with all of the basic values and principles stated by the left I would still oppose their policies because they don’t work. High taxes, high government spending and heavy regulation harm people regardless of their income and countries that pursue those policies will always fall behind those that don’t.
The left’s blatant disregard of history and economics is approaching the point where it’s getting hard to believe their views are honestly held.
Vote:June 12th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Somewhere a Professor of Sociology of Health and Well-Being breathes a sigh of relief.
Vote:June 12th, 2008 at 11:21 am
NAZI = National Socialist German Workers Party
Hitler was a lefty…
Vote:June 12th, 2008 at 11:28 am
DPF said: But where National fell down is not looking at the short-term effects, in its desire to get the long-term incentives right. It was seen as callous for the plight of the family who suddenly had big rent increases on the property they had lived in for years.
More to the point, DPF, either intentionally or unintentianally, the accommodation supplement introduced by National in the 1990s provided a massive subsidy to private landlords who were then able to increase rents to maximise their return from tenants getting paid the maximum accommodation supplement possible.
So the net effect of the accommodation supplement was not to assist tenants, but to assist landlords. The distortion of the rental housing market by the accommodation supplement is a problem we’ve still got, and one that no Government can address without either a massive state housing acquisition programme or seeing thousands of people on low incomes thrown out of their homes.
Vote:June 12th, 2008 at 11:30 am
The left care a lot – they want to make all people poor.
Vote:June 12th, 2008 at 11:57 am
I have always wondered why many lefties in their 20′s are quite centre right by their 40′s, but the converse never seems to happen?
I attribute this to the idea that firstly, overtime, they see their left wing policies fail and they also with age, gain experience and intelligence leading to a more pragmatic long term analysis of personal politics.
I can’t believe they suddenly begin expressing a selfish gene.
The other possibility is they are right wingers all along and feign support for the left in order to be more attractive to the liberal women they meet when young, but their metamorphosis overtime, parallels the corresponding change in the attractiveness/political viewpoint phenomenon that is so clearly demonstrated in NZ political women today.
Vote:June 12th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Yes – it’s an interesting human dynamic and one that demonstrates the distortions created by State intervention – however well intentioned. I suspect the same human dynamics actively discourage people from working (or working more) when welfare is available as a permanent lifestyle option rather than as a temporary backstop.
Vote:June 12th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
I was on welfare for a couple of months a year ago…it’s one *crappy* option, i’ll never understand why one would consider that a desirable lifestyle…’go on the dole and live like a poor student – hurrah!’
Vote:June 12th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Classic!
A topic called “More on left vs right characterisations”, and the very first comment is from someone called “Labour are scum”
…honestly, you couldn’t pay someone to come up with some of this stuff!
Vote:June 12th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
PolicyParrot:
That’s a rather tenuous argument.
1. not all of the public who vote right are followers of Rand. I’d guess that close to 100% have read none of her books.
2. Selfishness is not unique to followers of Rand, or the right.
In my university years I endured many rants of the left. Not being particularly political myself I was content with listening while I consumed my beer. During those years I also heard plenty of venting from co-workers in my low-paid student-job-search positions (not to mention being told not to be too efficient by the unionised staff).
Only a few of those rants had lofty ideals of fairness. Many showed selfishness, envy, disdain for the financial success of others. The view that “if you do well then you are taking something away from me” seemed to be shared by a few, In other cases it was “if you work quickly then we will ALL be expected to do so”. So much for productivity growth…
So no, please don’t pretend the right are selfish and the left are righteous. Perhaps some of the wealthier/educated lefties who comment here have noble ideals but that does not extend to all who identify with the left.
Vote:June 12th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
then stephen you made a good choice. the alternative might have been to dig in and rail against the wealth and choice enjoyed by others (as some clearly do) .. but you didn’t. which is excellent.
Vote:June 12th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Is there any evidence that accommodation supplements lead to higher rentals? I haven’t seen that evidence, but assuming that it is true, surely this is a gap again between short term and long term. If there are a certain number of cheap rental houses available, and we give a subsidy to all of those seeking a cheap rental house, then logically in the short term the price of those cheap rental houses will go up – the supply is constant and the demand just increased.
However, in the medium term, the supply is not constant. If landlords are making good money from cheap rental houses, then people will build more cheap rental houses. As the supply increases the price will drop again. This is very basic economics, it always surprises me that people don’t understand it.
The question is whether reality matches this economic theory. So far, Toad has claimed that prices went up in the short term. I see no evidence yet, but even if that were true, it still accords with the theory. The question is what happened on the long term.
Consider instead what economic theory tells us about state housing. State housing is a regime where the government buys and provides houses at a price well below cost. They provide this not for everyone who is in need, but for a set number of lucky people. They provide no assistance for those who aren’t lucky. Economic theory tells us that we should end up with a waiting list for the government housing, plus a bunch of effort diverted to gaming the system (because of the substantial disparity between those who are equally needy, but one has a state house and another does not). And that those not in receipt of a state house will be much worse off. So far as I can tell, this theory also corresponds to reality – it is exactly what we see with state housing, and exactly the problem that the original accommodation supplement policy was trying to solve.
In other words, DPF is exactly right. National’s policy on state houses was intended to improve the lot of the poor, and so far as I can tell, did do so. The Labour policy that was reintroduced (failed policies of the past anyone?) is one that is worse for the poor, despite (thinking with the heart) seeming to be better. This is the difference to me between the left and the right – the left care lots, but have very little idea how to implement a useful policy. The right care, but also in general have some life experience or skills that allow them to design a policy that actually works in resolving the problems. It is convenient for the left to characterise this as being heartless, as otherwise why would anyone vote for the left – “same objectives, but no idea how to implement them” isn’t exactly a catchy campaign slogan.
Vote:June 12th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
“..In other words, DPF is exactly right. National’s policy on state houses was intended to improve the lot of the poor, and so far as I can tell, did do so..”
you really live in lala land..don’t you..?
think..!..overcrowding…3rd world diseases..etc..
plus..cutting benefits..
(driven by (failed/ing) finance company-person..ruth richardson..(!)..)
that also was ‘intended to improve the lot of the poor’..?
eh..?
(as i said..’lala-land’..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 12th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
DPF summed it up well. The right and the left have different solutions for the problems in front of us. The intentions and motives may be sincere or not – but that can apply equally to both sides of the debate. Personally I don’t place huge faith in Big Government – its track record is not great. At the same time a libertarian pure market approach is likely to deliver outcomes that most of us could not stomach. Everyone deserves a fair go or equal opportunity if you like. The question is how best to deliver that.
Vote:June 12th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Mark: “The left care a lot – they want to make all people poor.”
That’s quite unfair. The Left don’t want to make people people. They just want to make them dependent on the State.
Vote:June 12th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
No Phil, if you stopped smoking drugs you might be able to form an argument. Firstly, I said their state house policy, you are referring to benefit cuts. Secondly, overcrowding is a feature of the current Labour state house policy, not the old National policy. When you have an artificially limited supply you get overuse.
How about you try again with a coherent argument about what i said that was wrong.
Vote:June 12th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
“NAZI = National Socialist German Workers Party
Hitler was a lefty…”
Sigh
do some research before you comment
just because they have socialist in their name does not mean they actaully are
many countries with “Democratic” in their name are far from democratic
I guess the good thing is, by your standards you cant say the Greens arent green
Vote:its in their name
they must be
June 12th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
The nazis sort of were socialist, same as everyone else around that time. They might have won the war if they were more socialist i.e. Britain practiced command and control ‘war socialism’, while german manufacturers in the south were still producing luxury goods of some sort (can’t remember what).
Vote:June 12th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Short, shrivelled, etc:
From “Liberal Fascism”, by Jonah Goldberg
(Talking about the NAZIS) “…….we are supposed to see a party in favour of universal education, guaranteed employment, increased entitlements for the aged, the expropriation of land without compensation, the nationalization of industry, the abolition of market-based lending … the expansion of health services, and the abolition of child-labor; as objectively and obviously right-wing?………”
The right-wing-left-wing labels just don’t seem to me to be a valid system. The systems of Hitler and Stalin in PRACTICE were so similar that it was absurd that they could be regarded by anyone as opposite ends of a political spectrum, when onto that spectrum you also have to fit Ayn Rand Libertarianism. My suggestion is that both Hitler and Stalin are on the LEFT end and Ayn Rand is at the other. I see “Freedom” as the defining principle here.
The pure theoretical Communism was supposed to involve “the State withering away”, as opposed to the absolute tyranny of the fascist state. But in practice, Communism has always involved the sort of state tyranny that is unqualifiedly FASCIST.
Vote:As soon as you “wither” the state, you WILL HAVE libertarianism, the idea that human beings would somehow have turned into heavenly creatures and equality would be self-enforcing, is absurd. So call it socialist, call it fascist, it’s the same thing anyway – individual rights being trammelled by the State for whatever end. But to equate ECONOMIC, welfare-reforming “right wingers” with the Nazis as you try to do, is absurd. Economic right wingers are opposed to the fascism of state trammelling of individual rights, whether it is the fascism of Hitler or Stalin or Hilary Clinton or Helen Clark.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
PaulL asked: Is there any evidence that accommodation supplements lead to higher rentals?
Yep, at http://www.cpag.org.nz/resources/publications/res1115625926.pdf, from pp 42-54.
Vote:June 12th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
The lefties have a vested interest in keeping the poor poor. This is their raison d’ entre Fix the problem and they dont have a ‘CAUSE”
The last thing they want is for the poor to become not poor.
that why they presist with policies that lock the poor into welfare so they can command and control them
the lefties are the modern version of the medieval barons who kept the peasants under their control.
Good forbid that they get released from their chains.
Vote:June 12th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
paul..
how about you tell us how raising the rents of the poorest..and selling off a large amount of housing stock..
actually helped the poorest..?
and of course the benefit cuts are relevant..
that was the one-two from national..
esp as you are trying to rewrite history in such a 100% opposite way..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 12th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Philu
How about you tell us why we should have to pay for your life of leisure?
How about you tell us why it is OK for you to steal money from real beneficiaries?
Vote:June 12th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Jim dear boy, I do enjoy those who have cost the taxpayer a lot
Vote:at universities beating their gums.
A question, if all teenagers are equal should they not ALL get the
same amount of money as is spent on the average university student ?
Or would the National party be afraid that those who chose not
to sit inside those ivy covered walls would use the money to start
a business ?
Believe in equality ?
June 12th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Phil, stick to the point. Selling off the housing stock is irrelevant, only a small percentage of those most in need ever got a state house. Putting up the rentals of those in state housing does impact those people, introducing the accommodation supplement helped a whole stack of people who were in private rental accommodation.
This is a classic piece of double speak, focusing on the few who benefit (the privileged few) and ignoring the many who are disadvantaged. It is poor policy.
Toad:
That is a quote from the document you reference. It doesn’t really show what you claim it does, or at least my reading of it doesn’t. If you aren’t careful you’ll turn into Roger Nome – referencing sources that don’t support your arguments.
Vote:June 12th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
The right overestimate the ability of individuals to be sensible, and make wise choices. The left overestimate, the ability of the state to do the same.
also the right advocate a “fair playing field” where as the left advocate a “fair result”
The right are not selfish, the left are misguided, in thinking that an infinite number of schemes, reports, commissions, funding increases, grants and new rules and laws will fix all our problems. The solution is for the state to strongly enforce a small number of simple and fair laws, and help people out who really need it to ensure no one dies from lack of health care or food and that children have access to education and are well looked after. The state should ensure this but does not need to provide it all its self.
The left think they are kind but support eh funding of beneficiaries lifestyles, often including cigarettes and alcohol, in the hope that they’ll look after there kids. Of course many do, but the system encourages those who don’t.
Therefore: Party Vote ACT
Vote:June 12th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
PaulL said: That is a quote from the document you reference. It doesn’t really show what you claim it does, or at least my reading of it doesn’t.
Paul, it was this quote, rather than the one you quoted, from Alan Johnson’s research for CPAG upon which I was relying:
Vote:June 12th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Toad: didn’t see that bit. I’m not sure this really supports your argument though – my reading of it was that rents were going to rise anyway, and without the introduction of the accommodation supplement then lower income people would have been even worse off. The rise in rents is associated with the rise in house prices, the causes of which are manifold and probably not the topic of this discussion.
In other words, I still stick to my position that the accommodation supplement is good policy, where state housing is not. The accommodation supplement is fair, applying to everyone who meets the income test, where state housing is a weird sort of lottery. The accommodation supplement also leads to the creation of more low cost housing, because private landlords can make a return, whereas state housing only leads to more low cost housing if the government gets back into the business of building large tracts of housing. Finally, the accommodation supplement also (I think) allows low income people to buy a house and receive relief for that – which gives a whole range of social benefits.
Vote:June 12th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Shit ! Rand misquoted, again!..,.,..you people know fuck all……selfishness mean self interest….its mans right and a virtue.Its opposed by slaveowners and scumbags…..Socialists they are called.
Vote:June 12th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
DPF this is very well put. I would add that the left often sees things in terms of a ‘static’ picture, with no understanding of how people respond to incentives. So for example, we could double the sickness benefit and take much better care of our sick. The left would be shocked to discover that everyone would suddenly fall ill…
Vote:June 13th, 2008 at 3:50 am
Let’s divvy up the seven deadly sins between the Left and the Right:
Lust – Neutral – Everyone’s a horn bag.
Gluttony – Left – Nothing quite like a beneficiary sitting on their ass all day piling on the pounds. It sure isn’t poor people going to gyms to stay stick thin.
Greed – Right – Only because they are better at it. Sure the poor and stupid will put their hands up for any government handout going but clever right minded people examine the system careful to determine how to best position themselves for pure advantage. Greed is good, am I right or am I right?
Sloth – Left – Again we all known where New Zealand’s obesity epidemic is located. Far more obese citizens in South Auckland than Remuera.
Wrath – Neutral – Swings and roundabouts. It’s punch and counter punch with no clear winner, just a perpetual fight to the ends of time. At the moment Labour are demonstrating a clear sense of wrath with the EFA. When National get in later this year I’m sure the favour will be returned. Public sector workers will no doubt feel the cold hard wrath of nine years hard Labour brought down upon them with quite brutal and sudden speed (Which is good).
Envy – Left – No contest. If one word was needed to sum up the Left it would be envy. Just take the 39c tax rate as one of many examples. Basically people of the left are losers they can’t stand the sight of seeing other people being successful. They have to pull the winners down to their low pitiful level.
Pride – Right – The left have no self respect. Only a short term, day to day existence. Only the Right have the foresight to plan ahead, build up resources and a therefore be able to point back at what they have achieved and be proud. Rather ironic given the fact that Labour always run on the “proud” statement during their election campaigns. Me thinks it will ring hollow this year.
So what would you rather be, rich and proud or a poor fat fuck loser? The choice is yours.
Vote:June 13th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Beautiful, OECD rank. I am printing that one out and framing it……….Do post it again, it deserves to be wider read, and to win Karma points……
By the way, have you read P J O’Rourke on “The Seven Deadly Sins” (a recent column)?
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
I love this, we can debate all day long about left and right, who’s more greedy or selfish, but its the daily examples that really shine through.
Over the past 2 years I’ve rapidly moved to right of center from left of center, and I’ve noticed one startling thing. The more successful that I’ve become–University Scholarships and well paying jobs while studying–the more my friends and flatmates, who are ardently left, have stolen from me and disparaged my success. It started with the odd glass of wine disappearing from the fridge and quickly escalated to whole bottles every week, and continued to the point where I was expected to pay the lions share of bills because I was earning more, rather than my fair share.
Vote: