Metal Reviews

@ rio

Well, I disagree with that.. But even in that perspective the inefficiencies is present. For example: In Denmark we have this state financed retirement arrangement, where people can leave the labour market earlier than the age where you can receive the governmental pension, and still be subsidized. The arrangement was made to give worn down workers the opportunity of early retirement but now a lot of people takes advantage of it. It has become a problem because it drastically lowers the labour supply and hence is a 'threat' to future welfare. Every sensible economist in the country knows (and says) that the arrangement should be discontinued or drastically restricted, but because of the vast group of people planning to take advantage of the arrangement, the government does not do anything about it (they have recently proposed some minor restrictions but far from enough). If they did they probably wouldn't be re-elected and the opposition would probably use the election to re-establish the early retirement in exchange for votes. The retirement arrangement is a threat to future welfare, but because of political myopia it is not changed. People want the benefit of the early retirement and forget about the long run consequences. After all you can't expect the people to pay attention to long run perspectives when their own personal gain is at stake.

@ Eisenfaust

You're right, populism is an unpleasant thing. So much of the electorate is unwilling to think about long term benefits, as you have illustrated. This is what I meant when I said earlier that there is no problem with democracy, only with the societies it's applied to. In the UK we have always had a problem with populist media sources exaggerating problems, and twisting stories with the aim of reinforcing their own agenda in the minds of their readership, some of whom believe everything they are told. But I honestly believe that the responsibility for this lies with the inability of more rational people to put forward more persuasive arguments. Certainly not with the principle of democracy. I also believe that the only way to remove populist policy making is to simultaneously remove a governor's accountability- which is something I wouldn't like to see.

Yes, yes they were. But you didn't tell me anything I didn't already know. Hence the eyeroll.

This one



I just want some examples of when and where this has happened so i know what you have based this on, and so i can give a responce.

The populism is of course part of the problem, but I think the problem goes a bit deeper than that. The principle of democracy has a sort of an implicit assumption that 'the people' are rational agents, for it to work properly. That is of course an extremely heroic assumption. An assumption that cripples the whole concept, the way I see it.

It is a hard task for even the most rational man in the world :? to convince 'the people' that their pleasant lifestyles is destroying the world we live in. Even renowned economists can't convince them that they need to stay on the labour market for a couple of years. Hell, they can't even be convinced that they can't have both higher welfare and lower taxes.



@ Eternal Idol

It is quite hard for me to know the thoughts in your head, so I just spewed forth some of my thoughts on the issue.



@ stuartn15ted

Well the part about incentive not to bring up unpleasant subjects is pretty obvious. They could lose their (well paid) jobs on it. As soon as they get the power to do something about the problems, their own personal benefit keeps them from doing it.

On the subject of political myopia I already mentioned environmental issues. The example I posted for rio serves to exemplify this as well.

The last part, about buying off the voters, is also pretty obvious in everyday politics (and in the above example) I should think.

It is of course not separate problems as such, but more parts of the picture.

It is of course a bit 'unfair' to use examples from Danish labour market politics as reference, as I guess you haven't paid much attention to that subject, haha.

I do understand the points you are making and i do agree with you.
But what i meant by generalisations is that originally you made it out to be that these where problems that were inherient with democracy. I understand what you mean about politicians not wanting to bring up certain issuse but is that not why there is an opposition??? to hold the government to account? to ask the difficult questions?? The media has a role to play in this two. By buying of voters do you mean this such as making pre election incentives such as promices of tax cut?? if that is what you mean then i can hardly argue against that!

feel free to refere to the Danish labour market, if that is what you know then enlighten me! Like i said i just wanted example of actually events where these issuse you mention happened, if that one of them then go for it!

on the environment, the UK has actually got a very good stance on this issuse, we are one of the only countrys that is on target to meet (infact beat) our Kyoto target.

But like i said i understand and at times agree with you!!

Heh, I totally see your point. But I'm not sure whether you are saying that democracy is the lesser of several evils, or that there actually are better alternatives? Would you rather live in a society where the entire population influences the government, and accept that populism/selfishness are things that need to be combatted, or a society that is totally at the mercy of an unnaccountable individual who can decide whatever they want without risk of being voted out?

If I had enough faith in someone I would support them in a dictatorship. But the only way to deal with the fact that humans are inherently flawed is to give as many as people as possible a small say. I guess what I mean is:

Lots of flawed people with a microscopic amount of influence each

>>>>

One flawed person with a vast amount of influence.

Of course, that's pretty simplistic. But I think it stands up as a principle. To a certain extent I think history is a good witness. Compare the average quality of life in your average democracy to your average non-democracy

Actually I don't really know what I want.. I'm better with questions than with answers, haha.. I am just really bothered that democratic doctrine is presently the new 'religion of the righteous' when it is obviously not perfect, and I fear that it will have fatal consequences. I think I lean towards the idea that democracy is the greater of several evils.

If by quality of life you mean economic prosperity, you are right; but I tend not to consider that the success criterion. Actually I am opposed to economic growth (a bit unusual for an economist perhaps), at least as long as it has the high 'price' it has now. But that is a different discussion.

(*tempted to insert a Pentti Linkola quote, but resists*)



@ stuartn15ted

The opposition is governed by public opinion as well. That is the whole idea with democracy. The masses rule. The opposition does not raise subjects that are 'too unpleasant' either. They are as 'enthralled' as goverment.

About the tax cuts I just meant that besides from being 'irrational' votes can be bought as well. That sinks them even lower in my esteem.

No industrialised nation has a good stance on environmental issues as far as I'm concerned. The fact that arrangements like CO2 quotas are even needed is a testament to that. That is of course a rather radical opinion so you don't have to agree

I understand that britian is still not going far enough in its reforms on environment, however the point i was trying to make was that polititions have put this subject on the main agenda, and yes probably as a reaction to public opinion. However, I think it shows that democracy works.

vote can be bought as well? Is this maybe a reference to vote rigging? Although i can't say that doesn't happen, regardless of how much i would like to, i would say this has more to do with greed for power than an flaw in the democratic system. I'll direct you a the post i made in this thread on the 12th of april, that elaberats on my thoughts of greed in politics.

When you say that the opposition does not raise issuse that are too unpreasent i have to say that i really do need an example of this. Because in my view of it things like the 'CIA rendition' as they call it the opposition in our country do ask these questions. And i can safly say that no one in the Uk want to hear that we are helping the USA toutor poeple. MP in opposition have also been know to bring the circumstances of Princess Dianas death up in parliment, an issues which is very much taboo in the UK. I really don't think you can make any kind of generalisation on this issuse.

You know you're British when you get more pissed off about selling peerages than you do by the continuation of the Iraq war.

hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

No country is far enough in environmental reforms. Imagine what would happen if all the people in Africa and Asia had the same standard of living as the west. They will eventually, and when that happens the environment will not be able to sustain all those cars, charter holidays and electricity consuming home appliances. Either we have to keep those countries away from achieving the same standard of living (which would be pretty hypocritical, low and probably impossible not to mention undemocratic) or we have to cut down on our own standard of living. This is of course impossible since no politician in their right mind would ever air that issue. If someone did anyway they would not be assigned any power by the people. That's a problem with the democratic system.




No. I just meant populism.

The fact that greed, nationalism or whatever is influencing the rational dispositions of the people transfers directly to the political agenda. That's a flaw in the system. And a great big one in my opinion.




Those examples are not what I'm talking about. Check out the example on the labour market politics I posted. If an issue has negative consequences on peoples income or general welfare not even the opposition wants to raise it. Not even if it is important. Of course the opposition raises the issue of the CIA rendition, they have a pretty clear incentive. It is negative publicity for the current government and thus helps their own campaign. What I'm saying is: People are not good with long run perspectives => the political agenda will be as myopic as the people. It's the way the system works.