How do the left and right differ?

[trueblue]

From Harvard economist Greg Mankiw:

-The right sees large deadweight losses associated with taxation and, therefore, is worried about the growth of government as a share in the economy. The left sees smaller elasticities of supply and demand and, therefore, is less worried about the distortionary effect of taxes.

-The right sees externalities as an occasional market failure that calls for government intervention, but sees this as relatively rare exception to the general rule that markets lead to efficient allocations. The left sees externalities as more pervasive.

-The right sees competition as a pervasive feature of the economy and market power as typically limited both in magnitude and duration. The left sees large corporations with substantial degrees of monopoly power that need to be checked by active antitrust policy.

-The right sees people as largely rational, doing the best the can given the constraints they face. The left sees people making systematic errors and believe that it is the government role’s to protect people from their own mistakes.

-The right sees government as a terribly inefficient mechanism for allocating resources, subject to special-interest politics at best and rampant corruption at worst. The left sees government as the main institution that can counterbalance the effects of the all-too-powerful marketplace.

-There is one last issue that divides the right and the left—perhaps the most important one. That concerns the issue of income distribution. Is the market-based distribution of income fair or unfair, and if unfair, what should the government do about it?

[cat slave]

The two parties have been blurred in the last few years and the Pubs have
let us down. Hopefully, they will get their ducks back in a row and save
our country.

Actually, Pubs are responsible for the trouble we are in now ie not being
true conservatives, not sealing our borders, endangering our sovereignty,
spending like drunken sailors...or worse, and not respecting their employers,
that would be us!

[trueblue]

The two parties have been blurred in the last few years and the Pubs have
let us down. Hopefully, they will get their ducks back in a row and save
our country.

Actually, Pubs are responsible for the trouble we are in now ie not being
true conservatives, not sealing our borders, endangering our sovereignty,
spending like drunken sailors...or worse, and not respecting their employers,
that would be us!

I agree. I'm baffled at the general identity confusion in the Republican party. Isn't it easy? We need them to stand for what they have always professed to believe-- small government, balanced budgets and moral values. Instead they have been growing government, growing deficits and committing scandal after useless scandal.

With the return of true Republicans, or rather, true conservatives, will come the return of long-term economic success, etc.

[cat slave]

That and our large demonstrations to help keep them in line is our only hope.

[cat slave]

Im a lifelong Pub (till the last couple of years) from a lifelong Pub family. My
dad was a decorated WWII soldier and I know he is spinning in his grave over
how the party has strayed and become distorted.

[trueblue]

Im a lifelong Pub (till the last couple of years) from a lifelong Pub family. My
dad was a decorated WWII soldier and I know he is spinning in his grave over
how the party has strayed and become distorted.

That is true of both parties. I know WWII vets who are very conservative yet loyal democrats. They often explain how that party has dramatically changed since their younger days and hardly represents the party they signed up for so many years ago. I think both parties have moved to the left-- one more dramatically than the other, of course.

[Psychoblues]

The 3 tenets of Republican aspirations are low taxes, small government and traditional moral values. I suggest that they have bankrupted themselves on these subjects in the last 30 years and have no credibility whatsoever. Perhaps you can correct me if I might have misinterpreted something along the way?!?!???!?!?!?!?!?!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[trueblue]

No, psychoblues, you hit the nail right on the head. If you don't do what you profess to do, you lose credibility. W grew government when he should have limited it. Bush Sr. raised taxes when he promised not to raise taxes. And moral values? How many affairs have been reported just this year? And let's not even get started on Nixon...

Republicans need to go back to their strong points: trust the markets, shrink government and have the integrity to speak honestly and keep their pants zipped. Doing so will not only bring strength back to the party, but also to America.

We need the balance of two legitimate parties. Right now "legitimate" isn't a very descriptive word for either.

[cat slave]

That is true of both parties. I know WWII vets who are very conservative yet loyal democrats. They often explain how that party has dramatically changed since their younger days and hardly represents the party they signed up for so many years ago. I think both parties have moved to the left-- one more dramatically than the other, of course.

That is true. Good old time Dems were not radical leftists. Somebody better
move to the right and fast!

[cat slave]

The 3 tenets of Republican aspirations are low taxes, small government and traditional moral values. I suggest that they have bankrupted themselves on these subjects in the last 30 years and have no credibility whatsoever. Perhaps you can correct me if I might have misinterpreted something along the way?!?!???!?!?!?!?!?!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues


No, you are exactly right. Thats what TB and I have been saying. GW
screwed us all over royally! No argument from me on that!

[DragonStryk72]

No, psychoblues, you hit the nail right on the head. If you don't do what you profess to do, you lose credibility. W grew government when he should have limited it. Bush Sr. raised taxes when he promised not to raise taxes. And moral values? How many affairs have been reported just this year? And let's not even get started on Nixon...

Republicans need to go back to their strong points: trust the markets, shrink government and have the integrity to speak honestly and keep their pants zipped. Doing so will not only bring strength back to the party, but also to America.

We need the balance of two legitimate parties. Right now "legitimate" isn't a very descriptive word for either.

No, we need a third party, one that is viable. Let's look for a moment at Ireland, a republic still, despite the governments that have gone increasingly socialist all around them. In their country, there are 6 major political parties, and so you cannot dominate the field with A or B answers to everything. This has led the irish, I believe, to a much greater degree of liberty than we have here now.

A third political party would make the other two snap out of their stupid petty game, and pay attention to the world around them.

I otherwise agree with you though, the RP has forgotten itself, and the DP as well. Both have become rife with corruption of their ideals, and people need to stop simply voting for them for what they once were

[PostmodernProphet]

-The right sees competition as a pervasive feature of the economy and market power as typically limited both in magnitude and duration. The left sees large corporations with substantial degrees of monopoly power that need to be checked by active antitrust policy.


while I view the left as completely wrong, I fault the right for not recognizing that unfettered mergers does not promote competition....for example, the market power of the oil companies is not limited in magnitude and duration if only a half dozen of them own oil refineries......

[Rick OShea]

For me, a major difference between the right and left is their understanding of rights. Conservatives generally are in agreement with original founding thought that rights are exceptions of powers not granted while the left has engaged in a long term endeavor to pervert that concept. For them rights are just a fuzzy list of goods and services that government must provide to the dependent populous . . . After filling out the proper forms in triplicate and paying a small processing fee, a benevolent bureaucrat will stamp "APPROVED" and will grant our rights to us.

I will say that the far right's aggression to abortion has perverted their thinking and has spilled out into mainstream conservative thought and has threatened the conservative adherence to fundamental principles of liberty . . . and that disgusts me.

[Insein]

The 3 tenets of Republican aspirations are low taxes, small government and traditional moral values. I suggest that they have bankrupted themselves on these subjects in the last 30 years and have no credibility whatsoever. Perhaps you can correct me if I might have misinterpreted something along the way?!?!???!?!?!?!?!?!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

MY god! I actually agree with you. Republicans are not truely conservatives any longer.

[trueblue]

No, we need a third party, one that is viable. Let's look for a moment at Ireland, a republic still, despite the governments that have gone increasingly socialist all around them. In their country, there are 6 major political parties, and so you cannot dominate the field with A or B answers to everything. This has led the irish, I believe, to a much greater degree of liberty than we have here now.

A third political party would make the other two snap out of their stupid petty game, and pay attention to the world around them.

I otherwise agree with you though, the RP has forgotten itself, and the DP as well. Both have become rife with corruption of their ideals, and people need to stop simply voting for them for what they once were

I can't disagree with this. An ideal solution where political parties are dissolved and politicians make decisions based on the good of their constituents is impractical and not ever going to happen. But additional parties could be a viable solution-- if a third party could figure out how to get enough recognition and standing to actually be a threat. That's a big "if".

Maybe the best way would be to copy the platform of an existing party and then actually do what they say they will do... I'd vote for that.

[trueblue]

while I view the left as completely wrong, I fault the right for not recognizing that unfettered mergers does not promote competition....for example, the market power of the oil companies is not limited in magnitude and duration if only a half dozen of them own oil refineries......

What you say here is true for an increasing number of industries. Five media companies own 95% percent of all media. There are a lot of examples and it is hard for new companies to start up in that kind of environment. But five competing media networks doesn't constitute a monopoly just because it isn't the most efficient market outcome-- there are five active competitors. The left says we should force them to break up. What should the right do?

[glockmail]

From Harvard economist Greg Mankiw:

-The right sees large deadweight losses associated with taxation and, therefore, is worried about the growth of government as a share in the economy. The left sees smaller elasticities of supply and demand and, therefore, is less worried about the distortionary effect of taxes.

-The right sees externalities as an occasional market failure that calls for government intervention, but sees this as relatively rare exception to the general rule that markets lead to efficient allocations. The left sees externalities as more pervasive.

-The right sees competition as a pervasive feature of the economy and market power as typically limited both in magnitude and duration. The left sees large corporations with substantial degrees of monopoly power that need to be checked by active antitrust policy.

-The right sees people as largely rational, doing the best the can given the constraints they face. The left sees people making systematic errors and believe that it is the government role’s to protect people from their own mistakes.

-The right sees government as a terribly inefficient mechanism for allocating resources, subject to special-interest politics at best and rampant corruption at worst. The left sees government as the main institution that can counterbalance the effects of the all-too-powerful marketplace.

-There is one last issue that divides the right and the left—perhaps the most important one. That concerns the issue of income distribution. Is the market-based distribution of income fair or unfair, and if unfair, what should the government do about it?

I'm sure this guy from Hahvid is really smart and stuff, but I can wrap all this up very simply: The Right is right and the Left is wrong.

[theHawk]

No, we need a third party, one that is viable. Let's look for a moment at Ireland, a republic still, despite the governments that have gone increasingly socialist all around them. In their country, there are 6 major political parties, and so you cannot dominate the field with A or B answers to everything. This has led the irish, I believe, to a much greater degree of liberty than we have here now.

A third political party would make the other two snap out of their stupid petty game, and pay attention to the world around them.

I otherwise agree with you though, the RP has forgotten itself, and the DP as well. Both have become rife with corruption of their ideals, and people need to stop simply voting for them for what they once were

The only thing a third party would do is divide the opposition to liberals.
Remember Ross Perot?

[Joyful HoneyBee]

The only thing a third party would do is divide the opposition to liberals.
Remember Ross Perot?

Be that as it may, the two party system is antiquated and inappropriate in its current form. People may have finally reached their breaking point and we may see liberals and conservatives alike prepared to toss the baby elephant and the baby donkey out with the murky stinking bathwater that comprises our current political system. The time has truly come to look at more liberty promoting options.

For as long as I have been an eligible voter I have bemoaned the lack of viable choices available in the voting process. It is very frustrating to be expected to choose between the lesser of two evils, both of which are more concerned with hyper inflated agendas that they are impotent to follow through on as promised. How many times have we heard the platforms of candidates and then watched them turn 180 degrees once they took office?

I don't know that I see enough difference between the right and the left because they both say what people want to hear and then do what they must to appease their special interest groups. We have far too many laws on the books; we have a government that has grown too large and oppressive; and, we have too many people in office turning a deaf ear to the people they have been elected to serve.

[Agnapostate]

Mankiw's always struck me as inappropriately biased while pretending to be objective, and this is no exception. What's most important to note is that there isn't a viable left party or organization in the U.S. The U.S. is far to the right of other Western democracies, and promotes a limited range of center-right policy agendas.


[T]he governments that have gone increasingly socialist all around them.

No, they haven't.

[emmett]

Agnopostate says:
What's most important to note is that there isn't a viable left party or organization in the U.S.


You have absolutely got to be kidding me my friend, if the Democratic party in this country is not left then Yogi was not a bear.

[Agnapostate]

The Democratic and Republican parties effectively function as two factions of one party, but more importantly, both are rightist. There is no viable social democratic party in this country, as there are in the majority of other Western democracies, and there is most certainly no viable socialist party.

[trueblue]

The Democratic and Republican parties effectively function as two factions of one party, but more importantly, both are rightist. There is no viable social democratic party in this country, as there are in the majority of other Western democracies, and there is most certainly no viable socialist party.

??? Really? You're welcome to your views, but I think you're way off. For example: if there is no leftist party in America, who is proposing a socialist healthcare program? The anti-socialist right? Not likely. I'd say the opposite is closer to true-- there aren't many people left willing to reduce spending and government. Lately it has just been a battle over who's turn it was to do the spending.

[theHawk]

The Democratic and Republican parties effectively function as two factions of one party, but more importantly, both are rightist. There is no viable social democratic party in this country, as there are in the majority of other Western democracies, and there is most certainly no viable socialist party.

You're welcome to move to some socialist shithole if thats what you want. Plenty to pick from around the world.

[Agnapostate]

For example: if there is no leftist party in America, who is proposing a socialist healthcare program?

No one is, as I described here (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=24429).


You're welcome to move to some socialist shithole if thats what you want. Plenty to pick from around the world.

There are not, and you're undoubtedly the last person who'd be able to accurately identify one if there were. Your comment here is merely based on misidentification of state capitalism, for example.

[DragonStryk72]

I can't disagree with this. An ideal solution where political parties are dissolved and politicians make decisions based on the good of their constituents is impractical and not ever going to happen. But additional parties could be a viable solution-- if a third party could figure out how to get enough recognition and standing to actually be a threat. That's a big "if".

Maybe the best way would be to copy the platform of an existing party and then actually do what they say they will do... I'd vote for that.

The thing there is, if you look even at the people on this site alone, alot are sticking with one or the other, when there is already a 3rd party who more closely matches their stances, but because they don't one thing or the other, they won't male the shift, or, and this is the one I really can't understand, they say that if the party could win, they would vote for them. It's not a horse rate, you're not betting, and if even 10% of people would vote a 3rd party, the other 2 parties would suddenly be slapped in the face, but that takes the courage to vote for someone who might not win.

[theHawk]

No one is, as I described here (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=24429).



There are not, and you're undoubtedly the last person who'd be able to accurately identify one if there were. Your comment here is merely based on misidentification of state capitalism, for example.

Oh yes I forgot, you are one of those idiots that believes "true" communism/socialism has never been tried before, and dammit, we can make it work if we do it right this time!

[Insein]

The thing there is, if you look even at the people on this site alone, alot are sticking with one or the other, when there is already a 3rd party who more closely matches their stances, but because they don't one thing or the other, they won't male the shift, or, and this is the one I really can't understand, they say that if the party could win, they would vote for them. It's not a horse rate, you're not betting, and if even 10% of people would vote a 3rd party, the other 2 parties would suddenly be slapped in the face, but that takes the courage to vote for someone who might not win.

The problem is fear. Republicans fear that if they vote third party, they will get 4 more years of what we've gotten for the last 10 months. Democrats fear that they won't be progressive and trendy if they don't keep with the party line. Therefore the third party suffers and the country suffers. It would take an extremely charismatic person willing to take on the media jackals and the slights from 2 well established parties with a fully loaded barrel of money to throw at them if need be. In other words, it's almost an impossibility unless people get even angrier then they are now for an extended period of time. So if the next 3 years go the same as this 1, we could get to that point.

[trueblue]

The thing there is, if you look even at the people on this site alone, alot are sticking with one or the other, when there is already a 3rd party who more closely matches their stances, but because they don't one thing or the other, they won't male the shift, or, and this is the one I really can't understand, they say that if the party could win, they would vote for them. It's not a horse rate, you're not betting, and if even 10% of people would vote a 3rd party, the other 2 parties would suddenly be slapped in the face, but that takes the courage to vote for someone who might not win.

Of course you're right when you say people should vote for a party because they believe in it rather than because it will win. On the other hand, people already vote for parties outside of the big two with no real effect on policy. I don't see that change in policy coming before members of the two existing parties feel threatened.

[trueblue]

No one is, as I described here (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=24429).


You defined socialism as requiring a set of goods owned collectively and political power exercised collectively. I suppose I should revise my statement. If there are no leftist forces in America, who is proposing the socialist-republic healthcare?

[Agnapostate]

Oh yes I forgot, you are one of those idiots that believes "true" communism/socialism has never been tried before, and dammit, we can make it work if we do it right this time!

Wrong. I described socialism as quite amply implemented in the Spanish Revolution, for example. But accepting the "socialist" credentials of the USSR because the ruling regime described themselves as such is as stupid as believing the Chinese Maoists' claims to be a "People's Republic." :lame2:


If there are no leftist forces in America, who is proposing the socialist-republic healthcare?

Absolutely no viable political forces, from what I've seen.

[trueblue]

Absolutely no viable political forces, from what I've seen.

So is this a public claim of blindness or have you just stopped keeping up with the news lately?

[Agnapostate]

So is this a public claim of blindness or have you just stopped keeping up with the news lately?

It's more a matter of being able to recognize the economically ignorant claims of rightists for what they are. Other than that, you were dead-on.

[trueblue]

It's more a matter of being able to recognize the economically ignorant claims of rightists for what they are. Other than that, you were dead-on.

You want to talk economics? Sweet. That's my chosen profession. So talk on, friend. What exactly are these economically ignorant claims and how do refute them? Of course, if we're talking economically, your case will be more solid if you use economic theory...

[Agnapostate]

You want to talk economics? Sweet. That's my chosen profession.

I doubt it, if you've already missed the obvious comments...unless you work at the Mises Institute. As mentioned, the use of the term "socialism" is inappropriate in reference to liberal democratic capitalism and an abuse of political economy.

[glockmail]

....

I don't know that I see enough difference between the right and the left because they both say what people want to hear and then do what they must to appease their special interest groups. We have far too many laws on the books; we have a government that has grown too large and oppressive; and, we have too many people in office turning a deaf ear to the people they have been elected to serve. So you're a conservative.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

So you're a conservative.

I think of myself as an observant realist. ;)

[PostmodernProphet]

What you say here is true for an increasing number of industries. Five media companies own 95% percent of all media. There are a lot of examples and it is hard for new companies to start up in that kind of environment. But five competing media networks doesn't constitute a monopoly just because it isn't the most efficient market outcome-- there are five active competitors. The left says we should force them to break up. What should the right do?

the right should promote a healthy and unfettered business climate....and recognize that the government isn't the only threat of "fettering"....and that promoting big business is not inherently a conservative principle.......

what that means is different in every business.....when you say five companies own 95% of media is that just radio?.....or is that cable and television and newspapers.......what percentage of "media" is the internet in today's world.....how many people get their "news" from Yahoo or AOL instead of Fox or CNN.....

also, people's attention is a much harder commodity to control than petroleum......I can see six guys in a conference call agreeing that it would be good if refineries had to be shut down for repairs two months a year......I can't see six guys in conference calls agreeing that nobody is going to try to win the Nealson ratings next sweeps week.....

[Agnapostate]

the right should promote a healthy and unfettered business climate....and recognize that the government isn't the only threat of "fettering"....and that promoting big business is not inherently a conservative principle.......

That would necessitate a rejection of the oligopolistic conditions spawned by market power, something I don't regard as a conceivable prospect.

[glockmail]

I think of myself as an observant realist. ;) In other words, Conservative. :thumb:

[trueblue]

I doubt it, if you've already missed the obvious comments...unless you work at the Mises Institute. As mentioned, the use of the term "socialism" is inappropriate in reference to liberal democratic capitalism and an abuse of political economy.

So instead of actually trying to talk economics you're just going to puff up and pretend you're tough? C'mon! I'll even let you decide if you want to explain your position in terms of macrotheory or microtheory. I confess I'm much better at microtheory, but I'm guessing I've got macrotheory down well enough for anything you'll bring up...

[trueblue]

the right should promote a healthy and unfettered business climate....and recognize that the government isn't the only threat of "fettering"....and that promoting big business is not inherently a conservative principle.......

what that means is different in every business.....when you say five companies own 95% of media is that just radio?.....or is that cable and television and newspapers.......what percentage of "media" is the internet in today's world.....how many people get their "news" from Yahoo or AOL instead of Fox or CNN.....

also, people's attention is a much harder commodity to control than petroleum......I can see six guys in a conference call agreeing that it would be good if refineries had to be shut down for repairs two months a year......I can't see six guys in conference calls agreeing that nobody is going to try to win the Nealson ratings next sweeps week.....

I agree with your analysis. 'Media' here is defined as radio, television, magazines, newspapers and the like. I'm not sure if internet was included, though many sites are owned by the big five-- CNN and AOL are both Turner, etc.

[trueblue]

That would necessitate a rejection of the oligopolistic conditions spawned by market power, something I don't regard as a conceivable prospect.

Again a big accusation. Got any economics to back that up a claim of oligopoly in media or are you still just all talk?

[Agnapostate]

So instead of actually trying to talk economics you're just going to puff up and pretend you're tough? C'mon! I'll even let you decide if you want to explain your position in terms of macrotheory or microtheory. I confess I'm much better at microtheory, but I'm guessing I've got macrotheory down well enough for anything you'll bring up...

You don't know that the three major variants of Western capitalism are Anglo-Saxon capitalism, liberal democratic capitalism, and social democratic capitalism? By chance, did you graduate from Bob Jones University?


Again a big accusation. Got any economics to back that up a claim of oligopoly in media or are you still just all talk?

I didn't mention them. That said...have you...not observed the ownership of television media broadcasters, for example? :lol:

[trueblue]

You don't know that the three major variants of Western capitalism are Anglo-Saxon capitalism, liberal democratic capitalism, and social democratic capitalism? By chance, did you graduate from Bob Jones University?



I didn't mention them. That said...have you...not observed the ownership of television media broadcasters, for example? :lol:

No economics here. I guess I have your answer.

[Agnapostate]

No economics here. I guess I have your answer.

There's no points that you've brought up that weren't addressed. If that's because you brought up few to no points, that's certainly not my problem.