Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Werral wrote: "Hard left" is not the same as "to the left of you". Alos dividing everything into left and right is simply innaccurate - ...

For a long time I've thought that a simple line is fatuously inaccurate for rating political idealogy.

For instance, let's say I'd like Uncle Sam to take the $10,000,000,000 per month he's spending in Iraq and apply it to NASA. Am I a Lefty because I advocate spending a tremendous amount of money on a government program? We don't know what my motives are for desiring this amount of spending on the program. Do I want it because it could mean strengthening national security? Would that make me a Righty? What if I wanted it because it could provide free research data for pharmaceutical companies, who could in turn provide free (or reduced cost) drugs to the entire nation? Would that make me a Lefty?

The real truth is, is that I believe that humankind's future is in space, eventually, and the sooner that eventuality comes around, the better the specie's chance of long term survival. So, it makes me a kook, but am I a Lefty kook, or a Righty kook?

The media outlets are smart enough to not show their hand so obviously. However, most are owned and run by people far left of center and their coverage reflects that (do a little google research and you'll see what I mean). I agree the average American is not sold on socialism, redistribution of wealth, or "big govt." yet, but they are moving that way. And don't forget, I'm no fan of the Republican Party for the last 8 years (govt. grew under Bush and the Republican controlled congress).
I'm starting to think we basically have a one party system (with the Reagan Republican/Democrat burried out back in an unmarked grave).

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Me ... -6664.aspx

AxeMental wrote:most of us see BBC and our own three networks as mouthpieces for the hard left.

Good Lord.

I can't speak for these ad-funded networks, but the BBC is famously neutral, impartial and politically centrist. It couldn't retain its charter or its taxpayer funding if it wasn't.

I'm struggling to imagine the kind of mentality that'd see the BBC as "hard left".

Axe, are you referring to the BBC or to BBC America. They are not quite the same although they do feature BBC World News.

A bit of both (BBC America on the tele, but I also on occasion read at their website.


All of these networks present their opinions in a positve light and those of their opposition in negative. They also just simply don't report the other side (ommition). Public opinion is heavily controlled by the press. He who controls the news controls the electorate.

Here is what a Brit had to say:

1. It fosters support for hierarchical centralized decision-making, which in turn leaves ordinary people powerless over their own lives. If a journalist can process all information about primary elections efficiently, we are invited to believe that bosses can likewise process all information relating to company performance without a need to involve workers.
2. It breeds big, complicated government. Support for big government arises from a belief that it's possible for clever people to know lots of things and therefore manage them from the centre. Again, the BBC systematically but unthinkingly sustains this notion.
3. It undermines support for free markets. The case for free markets, as Hayek saw, is that they are information-processing devices. In rejecting this view, the BBC encourages anti-market attitudes. Is it any wonder therefore that so many markets - in macroeconomic insurance, carbon permits, congestion charging, organs, whatever - are so woefully underdeveloped?

Well, there probably are Brits who think that, Axe. I wouldn't describe them as representative of the mainstream.

It's a fact that Britain contains a substantial minority of very vocal, very whiny wannabee-middle-class dimwits. They're usually members of the Thatcher Jugend.

They're aasily recognisable by their polyester suit, their middle-management role that doesn't involve producing anything useful, and their sense of entitlement to an indoor job with no heavy lifting because they have a 2-2 degree in Media Studies. Other defining characteristics include a hatred of immigrants and the European Union, a 19th Century understanding of economics that's very familiar with Adam Smith and very ignorant of John Maynard Keynes, and a semi-detached house with a gravel drive in some suburban Hell like Stevenage. These people are often found posting their ignorant drivel on the BBC comments pages.

Fortunately they're as disempowered and disenfranchised as they feel because the voting majority's more intelligent than them.

Ouch! That’s attacking the messenger rather then the message isn't it? Seems like your attaching this guys points to a very ugly picture. Even if he's correct, who'd want that guy hanging around, he sounds like he picks his nose and wipes it on his pant legs. P&P you’re a natural marketer.

Anyhow, its kind of the opposite here. The Reaganomic, Adam Smithian, low taxes, low government control and involvement, less regulation and less red tapians tend to be moderately educated (rather then the "elite" PHD snob types) but usually very innovative and hard working (that’s a trait of the rugged American individualist, something we need more of). I'd say half of the "self made well to do sorts I've met came from below the middle class level. They try to learn a skill and do it well. These guys and gals often take huge risks, and are often rewarded for their work and risk by making a good living (usually in difficult professions or starting a business). The idea is if you work hard (rather then slack off) and take risks (like spending time starting a business and getting an education) you can improve your life (rather then having someone else improve it for you, such as the government or your union boss).

Look, Keynesian economics is not in opposition to Adam Smith economics (I'm not sure if your suggesting that or not) for instance monopolies are illegal, and the Fed controls the money supply. Basically allowing the government to "occasionally" help take the blunt effects out of the economic cycle isn't beyond the scope of Adam Smith economics (as long as its not intended to be long term or over-reaching and is the result of some specific melody such as the illegal forming of monopolies, outright corruption, or the govt. failing to properly over site (as is the case with the current lending debacle (forcing lenders to lend to those who couldn't afford to pay, allowing companies to take gross risks their investors weren't told about), etc.). Once things get back to normal the Keynesian policies are reversed and the free market Adam Smith style economic policies go back into full swing (ie. government let the private sector do its thing and go away until we need you again).

What we don't want to see is Kensian economics used as a back door for govt. control over the economy (ie. socialism) and redistribution of wealth that never ends. That would be like a plumber coming over to your house to fix a broken pipe and never leaving. Who wants that fat bum digging threw your fridge, and watch out when he invites his friends, you'll starve.

Seriously, the govt. needs to create laws to prevent their future involvement (proper oversight), not create laws that requires it (such as what BPoM has alluded to). But thats the problem P&P, what government administrator is going to get things running so well on their own that they are no longer needed (after all they want a nice job and lots of things too, including power and respect). In the auto industry it used to be called "planned obsolescence" (where they'd build things to break down so they could fix them). Our governments do the same damned thing (be it the economy or crime). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence

Remember it is the idea that there will be a reward that people work hard and take risks. Take away the reward and you take away the motivation to work, invent and create.

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:
I'm struggling to imagine the kind of mentality that'd see the BBC as "hard left".

Blimey If you think the BBC is "hard left" then you'll think Glaswegians are hard line communists...

AxeMental wrote: you can improve your life (rather then having someone else improve it for you, such as the government or your union boss).

I dont really get this phrase...people in unions dont "expect" the Steward or Convener to improve their life...what they do expect is that they will address any unfair/illegal or dangerous practices being carried out by an employer and offer moral and/or legal support if need be. In some cases they will negotiate contractual issues and wage issues on behalf of the workforce, they cannot however do anything without the consent of the majority of the workforce membership.

On a side issue that was briefly touch upon earlier in the thread, the UK started a series of privatisations of public owned companies under thatcher, bliar finished it off... on the whole they have been a disaster...The majority of people across the UK actually would like to see these services back under closely regulated public ownership.

Railways... staff cuts, services down, prices to the consumer up, profits up, accidents and fatalities due to corporate negligence up.

Gas and Electricity... services down, prices to the consumer at record highs (some vurnerable members of society cannot afford to heat their homes), accidents and fatalites (Gas services) due to corporate negligence up......Profits for these companies are at the highest since records began!


Hospital cleaners....staff cuts, services down (no brainer), MRSA rampant in many hospitals...leading to...fatalities

Water Services (England and Wales).... Prices up, services down, areas with constant shortages of drinking water, complaints of "contamination" up...profits up.

AxeMental wrote:A bit of both (BBC America on the tele, but I also on occasion read at their website

All of these networks present their opinions in a positve light and those of their opposition in negative. They also just simply don't report the other side (ommition). Public opinion is heavily controlled by the press. He who controls the news controls the electorate.

Britain's bestselling newspaper, The Sun, is owned by Rupert Murdoch, same guy as Fox (the paper is like Fox News, but with titties), he also own's Sky.

AxeMental wrote: Here is what a Brit had to say:

1. It fosters support for hierarchical centralized decision-making, which in turn leaves ordinary people powerless over their own lives. If a journalist can process all information about primary elections efficiently, we are invited to believe that bosses can likewise process all information relating to company performance without a need to involve workers.

This is neither right nor left since large corporations generally promote the same idea - "Fair and Balanced" or "We Report, You Decidce" Remember?

In Italy with a Right wing government who's current PM owns the main private television networks (Mediaset), newspapers (Il Messagero).

Furthermore the BBC is now largely outsourced to small private contractors . It also promotes lots of local broadcasters and news-providers who are the exact opposite of what you describe.

AxeMental wrote: 2. It breeds big, complicated government. Support for big government arises from a belief that it's possible for clever people to know lots of things and therefore manage them from the centre. Again, the BBC systematically but unthinkingly sustains this notion.

I can actually agree with this historically as the view when the BBC was formed, and the idea or "BBC English" as an attempt to eleiminate local dialects is one example. This was actually a result conservative ideology (though, by conservative, I mean the standpoint Tory, not modern-American conservatism)

The modern BBC is very different and tends to emphasise local input.

AxeMental wrote: 3. It undermines support for free markets. The case for free markets, as Hayek saw, is that they are information-processing devices. In rejecting this view, the BBC encourages anti-market attitudes. Is it any wonder therefore that so many markets - in macroeconomic insurance, carbon permits, congestion charging, organs, whatever - are so woefully underdeveloped?

Britain is hardly underdeveloped. some things work better under freemarket conditions and some don't (I'd say trains worked better in Britain under teh state run British rail then after privatisation).
Again the BBC is not designed to replace private media, but o complement it (which I think it does rather well). US "private" broadcaster also recieve something to the tune of $5 billion a year by the way in return for providing educational content.

AxeMental wrote:Ouch! That’s attacking the messenger rather then the message isn't it?

You're quite right, I am.

I took it as read that someone who feels the public are disempowered by having access to a source of information is an idiot. Do I need to explain why that is?

AxeMental wrote:Anyhow, its kind of the opposite here. The Reaganomic, Adam Smithian, low taxes, low government control and involvement, less regulation and less red tapians tend to be moderately educated (rather then the "elite" PHD snob types) but usually very innovative and hard working (that’s a trait of the rugged American individualist, something we need more of). They try to learn a skill and do it well. These guys and gals take huge risks, and are rewarded for their work and risk by making a good living (usually in difficult professions or starting a business). The idea is if you work hard (rather then slack off) and take risks (like spending time starting a business and getting an education) you can improve your life (rather then having someone else improve it for you, such as the government or your union boss).

Yes, I understand the theory. The problem is business practice.

Hard work earns you a certain amount of money, but it won't make you wealthy. If you work hard and don't complain about it, you'll get some cash but what you'll mostly get is a great deal more hard work. Because employers tend to give work to the people who show the capacity to knuckle down and cope with it; and they're reluctant to promote these knuckle-downers because of the Peter Principle.

The big money-earner in Western society is a willingness to accept risk. If you look at the top thousand self-made wealthy people on Earth, you'll find none of them work very hard at all -- or at least, they don't work in any sense you or I would understand work (they don't know how to perform a useful trade, they don't deal with their own customers or clients, they don't produce their own fees, and they spend most of their time sitting around in meetings with other people).

And these wealthy risk-takers have structured their lives so that they have limited liability but they can take unlimited risk. Instead, they pay people to advise them on their decisions; and make sure the advisors are liable for the advice they give. And if the advisor screws up, their business is some kind of limited-liability enterprise and their own assets are protected, or hedged, from their own risk-taking behaviour.

And society doesn't just permit that; it admires and encourages it.

And these wealthy people, with all the power and money at their fingertips, made it using unearned capital -- borrowed or inherited money, not money they've personally earned through hard work. Many have gone bankrupt several times in the course of getting to their position of power and wealth.

Encouraging that is irresponsible and dumb. It's as dangerous as feeding unlimited cash to the welfare-dependents -- or in fact more dangerous because at least the welfare-dependents aren't making decisions that affect thousands of people's jobs.

As for innovators -- all too often they die in poverty while someone who contributed nothing except finance (which they'd borrowed or inherited) takes both the credit and the profit.

If I felt that large sums of wealth were really self-generated by hard workers or innovators, using money they'd earned rather than inherited or borrowed, then I would agree that you're right.

AxeMental wrote:Look, Keynesian economics is not in opposition to Adam Smith economics (I'm not sure if your suggesting that or not)

I think Keynes is Einstein to Adam Smith's Newton.

TheRedPriest wrote:

Werral wrote: "Hard left" is not the same as "to the left of you". Alos dividing everything into left and right is simply innaccurate - ...

For a long time I've thought that a simple line is fatuously inaccurate for rating political idealogy.

For instance, let's say I'd like Uncle Sam to take the $10,000,000,000 per month he's spending in Iraq and apply it to NASA. Am I a Lefty because I advocate spending a tremendous amount of money on a government program? We don't know what my motives are for desiring this amount of spending on the program. Do I want it because it could mean strengthening national security? Would that make me a Righty? What if I wanted it because it could provide free research data for pharmaceutical companies, who could in turn provide free (or reduced cost) drugs to the entire nation? Would that make me a Lefty?

I don't know, but if you had a party, I'd vote for you (if you ran in the UK that is)

I don't know if you've ever seen this: http://www.politicalcompass.org - it uses a four-way grid that's strangely similar to AD&D alignment.

Ice Maiden:

I dont really get this phrase...people in unions dont "expect" the Steward or Convener to improve their life...what they do expect is that they will address any unfair/illegal or dangerous practices being carried out by an employer and offer moral and/or legal support if need be. In some cases they will negotiate contractual issues and wage issues on behalf of the workforce, they cannot however do anything without the consent of the majority of the workforce membership."

In the USA (with the exception of perhaps the coal industry) most working condition issues have long long ago been taken care of. Now its about pensions, insurance and salary. The average union worker in the auto industry for instance makes about $73 an hour (including benefits). So work 8 hours a day that’s $600 x 5= $3000 a week and if you work 50 weeks a year (and I'm not sure how many they work) that’s $150,000 (in pay and benefits). That’s more then most professions (even some medical doctors make less). What is their advanced education that they have received or special skill? Nothing, they just happen to belong to a government backed union. I STRONGLY suspect the same thing is going on in the UK (though I've never researched it so I don't know). Read this: http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/200 ... -pay_N.htm If market forces could dictate what these jobs should pay (screwing in automotive parts) I'd suspect far less (probably $10 an hour with no benefits). Its not exactly skilled labor. This would lower the cost of cars, and probably increase motivation for workers to get raises based on their individual performance (rather then mass contracts based on time employed etc.).

As for the power, water, telephone, etc. these are quasi-free market in the USA as well, and they too are costly. Basically they are monopolies (have zero competition), and there isn't much alternative. I still think its better then the govt. owning it. And I doubt its less efficient (its just that the govt. could subsidize things without you knowing from alternate revenue sources, at least that’s what happened here, you might pay less in the bill but pay more in some tax which got funnelled over, a hidden charge really).

Another thing to consider is that I think your govt. is made up of more highly educated and "normal" individuals then ours. In our govt. (all levels) we often get applicants that either don't want to work (who have heard what a cake job it is) or those that feel like they can't cut it in the private secter (not always, but often this occurs). Also, it tends to promote the worst elements (don't ask me why), and traditionally people are hired based on race rather then ability (affirmative action), salary is based on time spent rather then quality (I don't know if you do that) and its literally next to impossible to be fired from a govt. job, so the USAs govt. is probably not comparable to yours (the laws that apply to private business simply don't exist in the govt. realm).

P&P wrote: " I took it as read that someone who feels the public are disempowered by having access to a source of information is an idiot. Do I need to explain why that is?"

It is difficult to understand his writing style. I took it to mean that he feels most believe the media outlets are objective when they are not (and I think he was suggesting BBC's much larger market has more impact in this regard. This is a legit point (after all the people who run BBC probably overwhelmingly vote the equiv. to our liberal, one would suspect that it would be natural for them to report what they thought the "truth" was, what they see as objective the otherside sees as bias). Party affiliation of those comprising the press and its owners would be easy enough to look up I imagine (surely the conservatives are outnumbered). I also think he believes people are taught to just accept their conclusions (after they have filtered the facts) rather then drawing their own individual conclusions. I actually agree with that (and I find myself sometimes falling into that trap, mostly because I don't have the time or read fast enough to really keep up with everything going on).

His other two points I think are these: That 1. BBC supports the idea of a big government under the notion that a lot of clever people can run peoples lives better then they themselves can (because they are smarter, more educated etc.) and 2. that BBC's news reports favor big government regulating the free market. He suggests these hamper progress in the free market system. If BBC does support these stances as he suggests (rather then objectively showing both sides) I'd agree with him.

I do think that every voter has an obligation to seek out both sides of an issue (by reading extensively opposing views) and then formulate their own opinion. Too often people agree with others opinions because they are a famous celebrity, or a trusted anchor person from their childhood, or hell to feel like they belong to a group (self identifide environmentalists for example often vote in lock step even on issues that have nothing to do with the environment).


As for the points you bring up about capitalism and free market economics, I can say only this. More people prosper under a free market system than in any other system ever devised by man. Why? because it creates jobs, reduces waste, increases choice and innovation. WIthout it we'd live in a world very similar to what the Soviets had (long lines for generic bread, and a thriving black market). Capitalism is the oldest form of economic activity in sedentary people that are not heavily controlled. When it comes down to it, nobody will risk or work hard without the possibility of reward. Its part of being members of the Wild Kingdom (you can blame the apes).

PS. And I do sympathize with your point about often the best workers being passed over for promotion because the managers don't want to loose them. But, its really up to these individuals to look at themselves as a valuable commodity (with something unique to offer), to be the scarce resource and to play competing companies against each other. This means asking for a raise or threatening to leave to co. B. Unfortunately, its these personalities that are often the least into self promotion. But a smart company will see that quality within them and advance them anyway. And they'll recognize the scum for what it is.

Oh, and risking other peoples money is the hallmark of capitalism (check out Edison) it is the engine that makes the train go, it always has been since the beginning of time. One person has the money the other person the idea and drive. The gym I work out in (Planet Fitness is a franchise) is like that (of the two owners, one does all the work and has the personality the other just brought the money to the table). They are doing very well, and their employees seem extremely happy and pleasant with their jobs (because they are treated well). Side note: This happy dynamic between the dozen employees and two owners would very likely change if these workers ever became unionized. The workers would be convinced that their bosses were the enemy (thus tension would mount) and always using them. They'd be told to work no more then what the union agreed to (stifling productivity). Any excessive productivity makes everyone else in the union look bad, and that can't happen. I've heard horror stories from friends about getting death threats and tires cut for trying to do a good job (which made the union look bad, after all why can this guy screw in 20 widgets an hour with ease and you told us the most workers could handle was 15). Unions and big government are like poison to the USA economy. Both are needed, but completely out of control.

most of us see BBC and our own three networks as mouthpieces for the hard left

Are you including that bastion of right-thinking Fox News as one of 'Our own three networks'?

Could you explain how, on one hand, the American far-right is unflagging in their support of Israel, yet is equally fervent in their distrust of American Jews. I've looked up those 'hard-lefties' you like to think control the media...and Jesus H. Christ, the vast majority are Jews. It's gotta be some freaky conspiracy right??

Propaganda...it's only good if it's mine.

AxeMental wrote:
Another thing to consider is that I think your govt. is made up of more highly educated and "normal" individuals then ours. In our govt. (all levels) we often get applicants that either don't want to work (who have heard what a cake job it is) or those that feel like they can't cut it in the private secter (not always, but often this occurs). Also, it tends to promote the worst elements (don't ask me why), and traditionally people are hired based on race rather then ability (affirmative action), salary is based on time spent rather then quality (I don't know if you do that) and its literally next to impossible to be fired from a govt. job, so the USAs govt. is probably not comparable to yours (the laws that apply to private business simply don't exist in the govt. realm).

Surely this has nothing to do with freemarket/vs State, it's simply a matter of expertise. For example a large company could be run by a bunch of incompetents. Sure, eventually it would go bust or get swallowed by a larger company, but with a big enough company many years could pass with things looking hunkey-dory before the whole thing imploded.

Keynes and Kenesian policy are often two different things.

Keynes did not believe in the "invisible hand" (that individuals working for their own best interest in a lawful society will generate the greatest prosperity for all from the lofty CEO to the lowly worker in the factory). In that respect he is wrong and an enemy of the free market.

His observations that the economic cycle leads to hardships is correct (but no Adam Smith supporter denies this). Recessions are seen as good (a natural part of the economic wave cycle, like a human having to sleep eat or go to the bathroom), as they cause companies to become more efficient, cause workers to re-educate and become more valuable, cause products to increase in innovation, and cause prices to drop (reducing inflation) without recessions the system really would colapse and die (with inefficiency and inflation). Sometimes its a small recession (and not painful) sometimes its a big and long recession (very painful). The big question is this: at what point are hardships so severe, or conditions so bad that the govt. needs to step in and either take over or start guiding the economy? The second question is how should this be done (did the govt. create the intensity in the first place, if so perhaps laws need removed)?

Keynes (and his followers) would say always, and didn't trust the competition model (they admit the economic cycle exists, but feel its too unstable). Smith followers would say, very rarely only when corruption or unlawfulness has taken place and needs correction to restore true competition in a lawful environment (breaking up monopolies or non-competitive practices between businesses, hiding risks from investors (whats going on now), and correcting miss-guided govt. mandates (for example, what BPoM was talking about with forcing lenders to lend to those who couldn't afford it).


P&P wrote: "P&P: "I think Keynes is Einstein to Adam Smith's Newton."

Einstein proved that some of Newton's laws were false using math (if Newton were alive he could work the math and see for himself, cut and dry). Keynes never did this, so your example IMHO is flawed (the science of economics is far too complex and unstable as its based on human behavior). If anything time has actually proven Keynes wrong. The explosive growth of prosperity and innovation caused by laissez-faire capitalism is unparalleled in the history of mankind. Look at the inventions that have changed the world in the last century and a half that wouldn't exist without free market capitalism. Would the light bulb, the telephone, the television, affordable cars, computers and medical breakthroughs in medicine and machinery (such as the MRI) exist today among the masses if we lived in a Keynesian, socialist or communist world. I strongly doubt it. We'd be standing in line at some government run supply house waiting for our allotted loaf of bread.

P&P exactly what did Thatcher do to remove oversite. Are you sure she wasn't trying to restore speed and remove red tape that weighed companies down? If so that doesn't always equate to wanting a lack of oversite. Transparancy is a requirement in a lawful economic environment (and something Adam Smith would advocate).