The dogmatic political left invests its faith in the bureaucratic state; the dogmatic right trusts oligopolistic free markets – leaving New Zealand with crumbling infrastructure and corruption
The Nobel economics laureate Herbert Simon came to the conclusion that all this principal-agent stuff was all very interesting but in the end just a debate over how best to push on a piece of string. Like many, he came to the conclusion that people are policy. It was necessary to staff organisations with people who ** actually wanted to get stuff done **, to achieve substantive goals and missions, rather than write reports, You know, like the engineers of our late Ministry of Works and Development, or during World War II, the UK Ministry of Aircraft Production. Or for that matter NASA in the days of Apollo. Or formerly great businesses like Boeing and Kodak in the days before the beancounters hollowed them out. And no, I don't think things are that much more complicated now.
Given that both parties accept neoliberal economics, I don't see much of a dogmatic left. The dogmatic right on the other hand ... they tend to rely on well practised stereotypes of hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders rorting the benefit system, an over abundance of bureaucrats, and tax cuts for the rich. So punish the undeserving poor, put government servants out of work, many of whom are there to protect the public, and yet again espouse trickle-down theory which even right-wing economic organisations these days have come to realise doesn't work.
I find it interesting that Mr McLaughlan spends the entire article criticising the left side of politics. Most of his examples are probably correct, but there are a similar number' or more, of extravagances dreamed up by either the neo-liberals or those on the right side that depend on mis-spent central finance.
This article is like so many recently in that it gives examples of theoretical failings, yet offers little or no solutions.
So here are some potential solutions which you are more than welcome to comment on.
We have one of the worst inequality problems in NZ. It can be corrected over time by marginalising the libertarian belief system of ‘me first, the group (eg everyone else - behind)’ to a more realistic, ‘what does the country/population need.’
Solutions which I believe, are a fairer tax regime where unearned wealth is taxed effectively. Next, government size kept smaller by allowing councils more local control of local services. Also promote the local councils or housing cooperatives use the Simplicity Trust method of financing and building affordable houses in volume.
Really enjoyable article and whilst maybe not touching on the entirety of the situation, is to my mind, a must read for the 'man in the street'. Most people don't understand how things went so badly wrong and the left of course is not providing an honest mea culpa. Ideology drove some of it but simple inexperience, lack of understanding of human behaviour and economics and systems has brought us to where we are.
The 'trick' for the average voter is not only to understand what went wrong but to understand that in large part the problems are still out there but it's now wearing a different suit.
"Free markets" (i.e. the sovereign right to freely use one's natural abilities to produce and trade goods and services that others value, and to acquire the means to produce more of those goods and services without interference from a State that holds a monopoly on force and violence) are, by definition, NOT oligopolistic.
You are confusing cronyism with "free markets" (and how odd that "free market" has become a slur). Rogernomics had nothing to do with free markets, it was pure cronyism. The fake "privatisation" were simply transfers of State monopoly power to a select few corporate cronies of the State, whilst blocking entry to markets by other participants.
Like most leftists you seem to think that you know better what others need and want than they themselves do. Moreover you clearly dislike the idea of an emergent system being able to allocate resources better than you and your cronies.
I would like to propose an experiment - one that has been suggested before: Let's give one of our islands to the collectivists i.e. socialists, communists, fascists, neo-cons and neo-libs to set up their all-powerful, authoritarian, collectivist State. The other island is for the people who don't want the State continually interfering in their lives, and want to choose the suppliers of their security, legal services, education, healthcare, transportation etc. Then let's see which territory thrives and flourishes. I'm pretty sure I know which one it would be.
A fun piece but a correction. Inventors don’t seek to protect their copyright. In so far as there is copyright in their invention, such as drawings, they already own the copyright by virtue of having produced the drawings. They may seek to protect their intellectual property, and if they decide to protect it by patenting it, it will cost them money - not very much to file a provisional patent but lots and lots once the patent is granted and they have to decide which territories to protect it in. For this reason, many NZ companies elect to protect their IP via ‘trade secret’, ie not disclosing it to anyone.
So the reality is different to your description of it - maybe a quick brush up on copyright law before your next piece?
Yes Danyl, it's quite dispiriting though there have been some great works recently - the SH1 rebuild following the Kaikoura earthquake comes to mind. There are lessons to be learned from that project for sure.
Having a clear goal, a willingness to trim the red tape, a measure of urgency and having competent and committed engineers obviously helped. More broadly, and unfortunately, many of our core values have become corrupted; everything inevitably falls apart.
*"Could the US have constructed the interstate today?
States fail because red tape and corruption exhaust them.
Poverty is caused the same way.
When individuals act morally and a trusting society therefore emerges the very deserts bloom."
The Nobel economics laureate Herbert Simon came to the conclusion that all this principal-agent stuff was all very interesting but in the end just a debate over how best to push on a piece of string. Like many, he came to the conclusion that people are policy. It was necessary to staff organisations with people who ** actually wanted to get stuff done **, to achieve substantive goals and missions, rather than write reports, You know, like the engineers of our late Ministry of Works and Development, or during World War II, the UK Ministry of Aircraft Production. Or for that matter NASA in the days of Apollo. Or formerly great businesses like Boeing and Kodak in the days before the beancounters hollowed them out. And no, I don't think things are that much more complicated now.
Given that both parties accept neoliberal economics, I don't see much of a dogmatic left. The dogmatic right on the other hand ... they tend to rely on well practised stereotypes of hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders rorting the benefit system, an over abundance of bureaucrats, and tax cuts for the rich. So punish the undeserving poor, put government servants out of work, many of whom are there to protect the public, and yet again espouse trickle-down theory which even right-wing economic organisations these days have come to realise doesn't work.
I find it interesting that Mr McLaughlan spends the entire article criticising the left side of politics. Most of his examples are probably correct, but there are a similar number' or more, of extravagances dreamed up by either the neo-liberals or those on the right side that depend on mis-spent central finance.
This article is like so many recently in that it gives examples of theoretical failings, yet offers little or no solutions.
So here are some potential solutions which you are more than welcome to comment on.
We have one of the worst inequality problems in NZ. It can be corrected over time by marginalising the libertarian belief system of ‘me first, the group (eg everyone else - behind)’ to a more realistic, ‘what does the country/population need.’
Solutions which I believe, are a fairer tax regime where unearned wealth is taxed effectively. Next, government size kept smaller by allowing councils more local control of local services. Also promote the local councils or housing cooperatives use the Simplicity Trust method of financing and building affordable houses in volume.
Really enjoyable article and whilst maybe not touching on the entirety of the situation, is to my mind, a must read for the 'man in the street'. Most people don't understand how things went so badly wrong and the left of course is not providing an honest mea culpa. Ideology drove some of it but simple inexperience, lack of understanding of human behaviour and economics and systems has brought us to where we are.
The 'trick' for the average voter is not only to understand what went wrong but to understand that in large part the problems are still out there but it's now wearing a different suit.
David P
An interesting and sometimes compelling article but Danyl surely knows that Weber was deeply sceptical about 'the iron cage' of bureaucracy.
"Free markets" (i.e. the sovereign right to freely use one's natural abilities to produce and trade goods and services that others value, and to acquire the means to produce more of those goods and services without interference from a State that holds a monopoly on force and violence) are, by definition, NOT oligopolistic.
You are confusing cronyism with "free markets" (and how odd that "free market" has become a slur). Rogernomics had nothing to do with free markets, it was pure cronyism. The fake "privatisation" were simply transfers of State monopoly power to a select few corporate cronies of the State, whilst blocking entry to markets by other participants.
Like most leftists you seem to think that you know better what others need and want than they themselves do. Moreover you clearly dislike the idea of an emergent system being able to allocate resources better than you and your cronies.
I would like to propose an experiment - one that has been suggested before: Let's give one of our islands to the collectivists i.e. socialists, communists, fascists, neo-cons and neo-libs to set up their all-powerful, authoritarian, collectivist State. The other island is for the people who don't want the State continually interfering in their lives, and want to choose the suppliers of their security, legal services, education, healthcare, transportation etc. Then let's see which territory thrives and flourishes. I'm pretty sure I know which one it would be.
Hi Danyl
A fun piece but a correction. Inventors don’t seek to protect their copyright. In so far as there is copyright in their invention, such as drawings, they already own the copyright by virtue of having produced the drawings. They may seek to protect their intellectual property, and if they decide to protect it by patenting it, it will cost them money - not very much to file a provisional patent but lots and lots once the patent is granted and they have to decide which territories to protect it in. For this reason, many NZ companies elect to protect their IP via ‘trade secret’, ie not disclosing it to anyone.
So the reality is different to your description of it - maybe a quick brush up on copyright law before your next piece?
Anne
*"We care so our incompetence was virtuous.
Sincerely,
Satan"
Yes Danyl, it's quite dispiriting though there have been some great works recently - the SH1 rebuild following the Kaikoura earthquake comes to mind. There are lessons to be learned from that project for sure.
Having a clear goal, a willingness to trim the red tape, a measure of urgency and having competent and committed engineers obviously helped. More broadly, and unfortunately, many of our core values have become corrupted; everything inevitably falls apart.
*"Could the US have constructed the interstate today?
States fail because red tape and corruption exhaust them.
Poverty is caused the same way.
When individuals act morally and a trusting society therefore emerges the very deserts bloom."
*Quotes from Jordan Peterson.
Guess who the principle agent is at the ToW office!?