Political factions and ideologies

[Hero]

A week ago I posted a topic in Far from the Forest, November 7th, commemorating the 92nd anniversary of the October Revolution. In keeping with the theme of my signature I of course presented it as something positive.

Through high school I was a very orthodox left-winger, and instantly thought anything with a red star or hammer and sickle was cool. I moderated myself with time as I saw that there were good-intentioned, well-educated people who were still in the political center or right, and not long after graduating had stopped identifying myself with communists and socialists.

I still think, now more than ever before actually, that my country of birth and citizenship is directly responsible for a lot of things that can only be described as evil, but I also understand now that communism doesn't have all the answers, at least not right now. I'd like to sympathize with the left wing in general, because left wing values tend to be the best for the most people in the long run, but even that's difficult because in international politics some of the countries and people who I think have the most sinister agendas have come to associate with it over the last fifty years.

I'm curious to know what you guys think about all this and to see how close or far your thinking is from mine. Where would you say you stand in the political spectrum? What are your thoughts on the different ideologies and factions that are still influencing world events, Cold War or no?

[Defeatist Elitist]

A week ago I posted a topic in Far from the Forest, November 7th, commemorating the 92nd anniversary of the October Revolution. In keeping with the theme of my signature I of course presented it as something positive.

Through high school I was a very orthodox left-winger, and instantly thought anything with a red star or hammer and sickle was cool. I moderated myself with time as I saw that there were good-intentioned, well-educated people who were still in the political center or right, and not long after graduating had stopped identifying myself with communists and socialists.

I still think, now more than ever before actually, that my country of birth and citizenship is directly responsible for a lot of things that can only be described as evil, but I also understand now that communism doesn't have all the answers, at least not right now. I'd like to sympathize with the left wing in general, because left wing values tend to be the best for the most people in the long run, but even that's difficult because in international politics some of the countries and people who I think have the most sinister agendas have come to associate with it over the last fifty years.

I'm curious to know what you guys think about all this and to see how close or far your thinking is from mine. Where would you say you stand in the political spectrum? What are your thoughts on the different ideologies and factions that are still influencing world events, Cold War or no?

Ideologically, I too stand somewhat to the left. I suppose I'm kind of enamored with the idea of everyone getting what they need. On the other hand, I completely understand that some people will just fundamentally think differently, and believe, for example, that everyone has to EARN what they need, and they shouldn't get it unless they've worked for it. I don't feel I am more correct than them, because what we believe is right is rather subjective.

However, there are some objective facts that can be looked at, and I tend to support at least some left wing policies, if not many. This is because in my observation of things, certain more socialist policies, when properly executed, lead to more people being happy and having a higher standard of living.

But still, some people will say that they think only the people who "work for it" should have happiness.

I guess I am willing to have some people who do nothing get to be happy and be supported somewhat, in exchange for those in poor circumstances having the opportunities to improve.

[quanta]

I stand quite far to the right relative to most people my age. However, I'm socially liberal and believe a good set of laws protects certain important rights. But I don't believe that the right to eat or to receive medical care is among them. This is for multiple reasons. For one thing, these things aren't free, and it is conceivable that under some situations there simply will not be enough money to pay for these to go around; or that the amount of money that could do this will be an exorbitant tax upon the more productive segment of society. Secondly, I'm very wary of trusting my health and welfare to the government (which is precisely the end result of socialized medicine; the private sector shrinks to nothing or becomes especially expensive so you lose pretty much any control over your own healthcare). Third, I don't like how socialization effectively makes things free for the rich as well as the poor (this seems very pointless to me; put a sliding scale on the benefits to at least attempt to control the size and power of government). Finally, I've never seen any good examples of what both of you seem to cite as true: that socialist policies lead to higher living standards and are better for a country's people. You're kidding yourself if you think anyone has come close to showing this or even showing it to be more plausible than the reverse. There simply is no easy way to account all the other variables under consideration; socialism might work well for specific countries (highly homogeneous, well-developed, and small countries probably have the best shot at making it work decently (places like Sweden, Denmark, etc.)), but it seems unlikely to me that the U.S. possesses the proper demographics and such for socialism to work well for it. The immigrant influx is large (which creates a large additional strain on social services), it's the only superpower (thus forcing it to maintain a relatively high level of defense spending compared to its allies, who simply sit safely under our protective umbrella), and the culture and people are very mixed.

Of course, there are also very many way to implement socialist-influenced ideals; some much more palatable than others. Job training and retraining are a better alternative than handouts as an obvious example.

Personally speaking, I also dislike the premise that people are so similar that a one size fits all solution works. That's not to say sometimes it's not a bad start, but it's only a start. Public schools are a great example of this; they're presumably better than the alternative of having a large number of uneducated people, but for some people, they represent a massive loss of productivity and time. The highly standardized school system for kindergarten through 12th grade probably set me back at least a couple years in terms of where I could have been studying on my own or at university. It's not exactly easy to get around that crap either, especially when it takes you a while to realize how much time you're wasting.

[Defeatist Elitist]

I stand quite far to the right relative to most people my age. However, I'm socially liberal and believe a good set of laws protects certain important rights. But I don't believe that the right to eat or to receive medical care is among them. This is for multiple reasons. For one thing, these things aren't free, and it is conceivable that under some situations there simply will not be enough money to pay for these to go around; or that the amount of money that could do this will be an exorbitant tax upon the more productive segment of society. Secondly, I'm very wary of trusting my health and welfare to the government (which is precisely the end result of socialized medicine; the private sector shrinks to nothing or becomes especially expensive so you lose pretty much any control over your own healthcare). Third, I don't like how socialization effectively makes things free for the rich as well as the poor (this seems very pointless to me; put a sliding scale on the benefits to at least attempt to control the size and power of government). Finally, I've never seen any good examples of what both of you seem to cite as true: that socialist policies lead to higher living standards and are better for a country's people. You're kidding yourself if you think anyone has come close to showing this or even showing it to be more plausible than the reverse. There simply is no easy way to account all the other variables under consideration; socialism might work well for specific countries (highly homogeneous, well-developed, and small countries probably have the best shot at making it work decently (places like Sweden, Denmark, etc.)), but it seems unlikely to me that the U.S. possesses the proper demographics and such for socialism to work well for it. The immigrant influx is large (which creates a large additional strain on social services), it's the only superpower (thus forcing it to maintain a relatively high level of defense spending compared to its allies, who simply sit safely under our protective umbrella), and the culture and people are very mixed.

Of course, there are also very many way to implement socialist-influenced ideals; some much more palatable than others. Job training and retraining are a better alternative than handouts as an obvious example.

Personally speaking, I also dislike the premise that people are so similar that a one size fits all solution works. That's not to say sometimes it's not a bad start, but it's only a start. Public schools are a great example of this; they're presumably better than the alternative of having a large number of uneducated people, but for some people, they represent a massive loss of productivity and time. The highly standardized school system for kindergarten through 12th grade probably set me back at least a couple years in terms of where I could have been studying on my own or at university. It's not exactly easy to get around that crap either, especially when it takes you a while to realize how much time you're wasting.

Let me clarify my stance. I am perfectly fine and satisfied with current Government system's in my home country (Canada), as they work fairly well (nowhere near perfectly, but since no-one is there, that's kind of irrelevant). However, if I could, I would probably prefer Canada move to the left further.

I in no way believe in a one size fits all solution, or complete redistribution of wealth. I do believe in instituting at the very least, certain, more focused socialist influenced programs. For example, one of the biggest problems in the area near where I live is homelessness. This homelessness has a very direct and traceable cause, the closing of several mental health hospitals. If the government we have in the area (which spends a lot of money, just in some rather unclever places) invested money into actually helping these people by re-opening the hospitals, we would probably be able to solve most of our homelessness problems.

Again, I'm in no way recommending a complete change to complete socialization of all industry. I simply believe that the government exists to serve the people. For me, this means helping people as much as possible without infringing upon their freedom too heavily (obviously you cannot have the freedom to murder people in a working society).

As for my belief that socialism (or certain socialist style policies) would create a greater quality of life for people, that is due to several factors. One is that, in certain situations, it can very easily do that, as you pointed out. I also think it is just very difficult for some things to work well for every person when privatized, at least after a while. Canada spends less of its GDP on healthcare than the USA, and every single Canadian has coverage that they are never denied, as opposed to the millions of uninsured Americans, or those whose coverage is denied. A lot of people talk about waiting times in Canadian hospitals, but the truth is that you will only ever experience those with non-emergency problems. That is, you will not die or become permanently crippled due to having to wait to get in a hospital in Canada. In addition, many markets in countries that do not have government run organizations or very strict regulations tend to stagnate. There are a huge number of companies that instead of competing, essentially co-operate, and enjoy huge profit margins. Of course, this isn't really so bad, since the average person can afford this, and larger profits should lead to larger wages, but there are times when this infringes too much on the common man. I also believe in directed approaches for social programs, like the example you gave of job training as opposed to handouts. To me, it is very important that steps such as this are followed.

I think, from reading your post, the big difference between us really comes down to subjectivity. What I think is a reasonable extension of government you probably think is unreasonable, what I feel is far too much market stagnation you probably see as completely reasonable. Hell, what I think is better quality of living, you may completely disagree with. I can't really say that you're wrong, because you're not.

As for social rights, as far as I can tell, I completely agree with you. For me, social rights are far more important than fiscal policy and its derivatives, simply because I am satisfied with the current system, and most close systems.

I think I worded some of that poorly, so definitely ask if you think I said something retarded or just need clarification.

Edited November 17, 2009 by ZXValaRevan

[Crystal Shards]

To keep it short and simple, I'm socially (quite) liberal and fiscally apathetic. I can recognize my failings when it comes to my knowledge of that area, and I leave that up to people who understand it better.

[quanta]

As for my belief that socialism (or certain socialist style policies) would create a greater quality of life for people, that is due to several factors. One is that, in certain situations, it can very easily do that, as you pointed out. I also think it is just very difficult for some things to work well for every person when privatized, at least after a while. Canada spends less of its GDP on healthcare than the USA, and every single Canadian has coverage that they are never denied, as opposed to the millions of uninsured Americans, or those whose coverage is denied. A lot of people talk about waiting times in Canadian hospitals, but the truth is that you will only ever experience those with non-emergency problems. That is, you will not die or become permanently crippled due to having to wait to get in a hospital in Canada. In addition, many markets in countries that do not have government run organizations or very strict regulations tend to stagnate. There are a huge number of companies that instead of competing, essentially co-operate, and enjoy huge profit margins. Of course, this isn't really so bad, since the average person can afford this, and larger profits should lead to larger wages, but there are times when this infringes too much on the common man. I also believe in directed approaches for social programs, like the example you gave of job training as opposed to handouts. To me, it is very important that steps such as this are followed.

Waiting times for non-emergency problems are not necessarily less serious. Diseases like cancer or heart disease often don't require immediate treatment, but the faster the treatment the better the results (or in the case of heart disease, prevention is far, far better; although I have no clue what's a good way to motivate this in people using any decent system). Socialized medicine also necessitates a very large expansion of government power and tax increases. American spending is actually probably not artificially high due to being privatized (quite the opposite actually).

It's also good to keep in mind that although there are some exceptions, very strict government regulation also causes stagnation (as I would see it). Too often regulation is used to restrict competition (usually by segregating a market in some way). Highly regulated/protected industries easily turn into government protected cartels or monopolies which is the absolute worst form of cartel or monopoly (like cigarette producers in the U.S.).

As much as I like the free market, I'm don't agree with the contention that high profit margins due to monopoly or near-monopoly status lead to higher wages (in real terms).

It's not that I am not in favor of some regulation, but that I believe that the primary goal of regulation should be to create a body of laws for owning property and secondarily to internalize externalities (which is something not automatically done by the free market). Trust busting and anti-monopoly laws are a more distant third priority; you want just enough to keep companies from engaging in blatantly illegal behavior or collusion

I think, from reading your post, the big difference between us really comes down to subjectivity. What I think is a reasonable extension of government you probably think is unreasonable, what I feel is far too much market stagnation you probably see as completely reasonable. Hell, what I think is better quality of living, you may completely disagree with. I can't really say that you're wrong, because you're not.

To some extent yes, it is partially subjective. On the other hand, I suspect the difference is more what we view as causing the problem the most often. For example, I generally view heavy government intervention as causing the most damage to the healthcare market; I think healthcare is often overregulated in America. The cost incentives are screwed up by the way insurance works (it gets tax breaks that normal wages don't, so people are often compensated by health insurance plans that are unnecessarily low on the proper incentives to only use healthcare when necessary AKA Cadillac insurance plans). You can't buy insurance across state lines (thus restricting competition). A hospital bill is completely unreadable (you can't tell what anything cost you), and the legalese of contracts (and tax law) is often intentionally difficult to read (thus creating a large market for lawyers). Malpractice costs are stupidly high (this could actually use more regulation though if that is what it takes to curb lawsuit damages; although preferable to that would be judges who were scientifically literate), and drug regulation is a mess that pushes the cost of making a new drug up a great deal. The really bad thing is if the U.S. socializes medicine, the market for new drugs would probably contract a lot, which would actually change the progress of medicine more globally (currently, countries with socialized medicine kind of bum a free ride off the fact that developing new drugs in the U.S. can still be profitable; once this changes expect either large government subsidies to get research going or a drop in the number of new drugs developed each year).

The worst part about human healthcare (in the U.S.) is that their is an example of a well-functioning, less regulated healthcare market where the costs are lower and the care about as effective. It's cat and dog healthcare. Of course, this only get to bug the shit out of me, because most people didn't grow up with parents who were vets (so they could recognize the often large difference in costs between human and animal healthcare for the exact same procedure or drug). Granted there are significant differences between species (dogs and cats don't get heart disease as much as humans for one thing; I'm not sure they can have heart disease actually), but some of the drugs and procedures really are effectively identical so the difference in cost ought to be mostly based upon differences in the demand for these things in the market.

And although socialized medicine deals with some of these problems, it does it by fiat. A single-payer system can push costs down (since there is only one buyer), but it raises waiting times, drastically curtails the incentive to produce new treatments and drugs, and takes control of a person's welfare out of their own hands.

As for social rights, as far as I can tell, I completely agree with you. For me, social rights are far more important than fiscal policy and its derivatives, simply because I am satisfied with the current system, and most close systems.

Yes, as much as people often disagree about things like what mixture of free-market and regulation should take place, I think it's good to keep in mind that the more important principles are things like freedom of speech, press, etc.

[Hero]

I apologize in advance for how this post is pretty America-centric, but a lot of what I say is still valid for most countries in the world.

Especially about competition between government-funded enterprises. In my opinion the single biggest reason for the economic stagnation in socialist countries was that they either ignored or incompletely realized their potential to have this competition.

It's not that I am not in favor of some regulation, but that I believe that the primary goal of regulation should be to create a body of laws for owning property and secondarily to internalize externalities (which is something not automatically done by the free market). Trust busting and anti-monopoly laws are a more distant third priority; you want just enough to keep companies from engaging in blatantly illegal behavior or collusion

The big problem right now is not monopolies, it's industry-wide cooperation in lobbying. Even though they appear innocuous and competitive at first glance, entire industries especially in areas that interact with the government a lot are able to get sympathetic regulations passed into law which subsidize existing companies while making it more difficult for upstarts to compete. The entire system of how government contracts are given out is also corrupt, and at a much deeper level.

This is where a reform-minded government should focus first.

Waiting times for non-emergency problems are not necessarily less serious. Diseases like cancer or heart disease often don't require immediate treatment, but the faster the treatment the better the results (or in the case of heart disease, prevention is far, far better; although I have no clue what's a good way to motivate this in people using any decent system). Socialized medicine also necessitates a very large expansion of government power and tax increases. American spending is actually probably not artificially high due to being privatized (quite the opposite actually).

I don't think that Revan was referring to a lack of access to care when he talked about waiting times.

Also, American spending on health care is artificially high. This is because HMOs, being private, are first and foremost designed to enrich themselves and their shareholders. It's naive to think that they consider the quality or comprehensiveness of their service as anything other than a path to achieving their primary goal. Most HMOs are well-established and they have a pretty strong lobby in Congress, and so they've been able to really rip off a lot of people.

I also don't see public health care as having the drawbacks you write about, though Obama's public option certainly would. I could go into detail about how good public health care could be instituted, but that wouldn't be worth it unless you really want to hear my opinion and long story short would be too painful to happen any time soon in such a large country undergoing such big problems as America right now.

It's also good to keep in mind that although there are some exceptions, very strict government regulation also causes stagnation (as I would see it). Too often regulation is used to restrict competition (usually by segregating a market in some way). Highly regulated/protected industries easily turn into government protected cartels or monopolies which is the absolute worst form of cartel or monopoly (like cigarette producers in the U.S.).

As much as I like the free market, I'm don't agree with the contention that high profit margins due to monopoly or near-monopoly status lead to higher wages (in real terms).

I agree with you here 100%. I actually think a lot of regulation and government interference is generally a good thing, because the government is what brings all aspects of a country together and coordination is important for success in anything. But I also believe in the power of competition. Something a lot of people seem not to understand is that competition doesn't need to be private.

For example, in Israel everyone is required to have basic health insurance with one of four organizations, all of which are free for the people who sign up with them and funded by the state based on the number and type of people signed with them. So in order to get more money from the state these four organizations compete in terms of the quality of the services they provide for free as well as the quality and price of extra, "bells and whistles" services. This system works well and Israel has one of the highest quality health care systems in the world.

Yes, as much as people often disagree about things like what mixture of free-market and regulation should take place, I think it's good to keep in mind that the more important principles are things like freedom of speech, press, etc.

I don't think guaranteeing rights and freedoms is the best way to go about these issues. It makes more sense to me to just clearly define what what a given person or organization can or cannot do. This way there are a lot fewer legal gray areas, since the law will only approach these issues from one direction. The USA would be a much better country to live in if the huge body of statutes that have come into effect over the last 230 years were scrapped and rewritten keeping in mind clarity, organization and succinctness, and eliminating contradictions. Not that that will ever happen in my lifetime.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Hero

[quanta]

The big problem right now is not monopolies, it's industry-wide cooperation in lobbying. Even though they appear innocuous and competitive at first glance, entire industries especially in areas that interact with the government a lot are able to get sympathetic regulations passed into law which subsidize existing companies while making it more difficult for upstarts to compete. The entire system of how government contracts are given out is also corrupt, and at a much deeper level.

This is where a reform-minded government should focus first.

Lobbying is the inevitable result of a democratic government. The only reform that's needed is for politicians to have to disclose their donor lists. That's it.

I don't think that was referring to a lack of access to care when he talked about waiting times.

Ummm... what? and I were both talking about waiting times. I guess he could have been talking about the wait a few hours in the emergency room thing, but that's not really as relevant as the waiting time for technically non-emergency procedures.

Also, American spending on health care is artificially high. This is because HMOs, being private, are first and foremost designed to enrich themselves and their shareholders. It's naive to think that they consider the quality or comprehensiveness of their service as anything other than a path to achieving their primary goal. Most HMOs are well-established and they have a pretty strong lobby in Congress, and so they've been able to really rip off a lot of people.

You're kidding right? An HMO's incentive is to hold down costs. You can't simultaneously rip people off and artificially hold the level of healthcare spending artificially high when you're the company paying for it. The reason healthcare costs are screwed up is because of a bad set of incentives. Many employer based insurance plans are too generous in terms of having almost no copay. And Medicare is also a ridiculous entitlement. It costs more than social security and more than defense. People using certain types of insurance have insufficient incentive to hold down cost, and this is why healthcare spending is artificially high. It has nothing to do with privatization and everything to due with how employer-based healthcare gets tax breaks that neither salary nor individual based healthcare do and how Medicare spending is absurdly high. Remember I said "American spending is actually probably not artificially high due to being privatized (quite the opposite actually)." (and by opposite I mean government interference in healthcare is essentially the cause of high spending).

I also don't see public health care as having the drawbacks you write about, though Obama's public option certainly would. I could go into detail about how good public health care could be instituted, but that wouldn't be worth it unless you really want to hear my opinion and long story short would be too painful to happen any time soon in such a large country undergoing such big problems as America right now.

Wait... you're not seeing how the government paying for everyone's healthcare doesn't require tax increases and an expansion in government power? (These are the only disadvantages I referenced besides waiting times which aren't nearly as big a deal; I apologize in advance if you were talking about something else) Medicare is already the largest spending item for the federal government. Now imagine the government also covers at least another 150 million people dead minimum (which is actually below the number required to switch to socialize medicine unless I'm way off but hey, whatever); that's extremely expensive and congress's spending already outstrips taxes very often. I'm not seeing how adding hundred of millions of people to government healthcare roles (and instituting a new bureacracy) is some sort of free lunch. It has huge start up costs, and only achieves something meaningful if the government uses its massive buying power to set prices (which would be where the expansion of government power comes in). Will drug makers magically lower their prices if we socialize medicine without the government dictating the price to them? As stupid as they may be in letting themselves be strung along by Obama they wouldn't lower their prices enough willingly.

I agree with you here 100%. I actually think a lot of regulation and government interference is generally a good thing, because the government is what brings all aspects of a country together and coordination is important for success in anything. But I also believe in the power of competition. Something a lot of people seem not to understand is that competition doesn't need to be private.

For example, in Israel everyone is required to have basic health insurance with one of four organizations, all of which are free for the people who sign up with them and funded by the state based on the number and type of people signed with them. So in order to get more money from the state these four organizations compete in terms of the quality of the services they provide for free as well as the quality and price of extra, "bells and whistles" services. This system works well and Israel has one of the highest quality health care systems in the world.

Huh? But I think a lot of regulation and government interference is usually a bad thing. I'm not seeing where we agree (except in that the government is often used as a tool to beat your competitors- and how this is a less than ideal situation).

I haven't looked into Israel's model. I may respond to that later. Even if it works well for Israel, I'm not so certain how such a plan would work for America. The two countries are in very different situations.

I don't think guaranteeing rights and freedoms is the best way to go about these issues. It makes more sense to me to just clearly define what what a given person or organization can or cannot do. This way there are a lot fewer legal gray areas, since the law will only approach these issues from one direction. The USA would be a much better country to live in if the huge body of statutes that have come into effect over the last 230 years were scrapped and rewritten keeping in mind clarity, organization and succinctness, and eliminating contradictions. Not that that will ever happen in my lifetime.

Basic rights generally are the more clear things. And for example, I don't mean that freedom of press somehow deals with the question of healthcare; I'm just saying that the press being free is more important than the status of healthcare (whether it's socialized or private).

Edited December 1, 2009 by quanta

[Divine Hero Nguyen]

Philosophically left-libertarian. Practically classical liberal. Economic views is a mixture of Milton Friedman, Adam Smith, and Friedrich von Hayek (put it simply, "unfettered" capitalism in the long-run, "stimulating" socialism in the short run.) Socially, I believe in social safety nets as well as welfare for all children and to an extent, elderly. Basically, I believe in second chances in life, maximum personal freedom, equal opportunity to succeed (Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, anyone?) Huge advocate of the Constitutional policy because it is the only document that almost every citizen can agree on almost every statue as well as Federalism when it comes to designing programs as in the words of Justice Louis Brandeis:

It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.

In a democratic society, those two things are what make sure that 50% of the nation's population does not bother the other 50%. If the Republicans want to drill more oil, great; just do it in their own state.

It's really hard for me to describe my positions because on top of having opinions ranging from traditional issues such as immigration to obscure ones like monetary reform, I do not view any issues black or white. For example, on the case of education, I believe that education should be compulsory but the money is attached to ALL (both rich and poor) children and they could be taught at the school of their choice, whether it is public, private, home-schooled, alternative, etc., and that amount of money based on the merit of the student through an annual standardized test. The test though has to be designed to determine how much the student had improved rather than how does the student compare to other students in their grade/age group, which is the problem with all standardized tests nowadays. The only kind of test that can fit that is something like an IQ test. If the kids shows remarkable improvement, then they get increased funding, but those that did not show improvement or performed worse, then funding gets reduced or the kid must change schools. Kids who have parents that could pay for their education could opt out of the program but get a tax credit instead. It has a mix of free market competition as well as welfare and accountability.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Divine Hero Nguyen