sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Maciej Kisilowski shows how disruption came to politics through an illiberal coalition of the working class and social reactionaries, in some places more viable than the social progressives

Maciej Kisilowski shows how disruption came to politics through an illiberal coalition of the working class and social reactionaries, in some places more viable than the social progressives

By Maciej Kisilowski*

Like the rise of Soviet communism and both World Wars, the Western liberal order’s apparent collapse in 2016 could turn out to be yet another historic upheaval that began in Eastern Europe.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s brand of “illiberal democracy” was quickly adopted by Poland’s de facto ruler, Jarosław Kaczyński, and is now making inroads in the heart of the West – first with the United Kingdom’s “Brexit” referendum, and then with Donald Trump’s victory in the United States’ presidential election.

Meanwhile, Turkey’s nascent democracy has already given way to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s strongman rule, and the Philippines is now led by a populist authoritarian, Rodrigo Duterte. As we head into 2017, something is clearly rotten in the state of democracy.

It may seem unlikely that Orbán and Kaczyński – who both trained as lawyers under their countries’ communist regimes – have become globally influential political entrepreneurs. But their political project has all the features of what management research recommends for a successful innovation strategy. Like many disruptive products and popular brands, illiberal democracy does not try to please everyone; rather, it targets a carefully selected segment of “voter-customers,” and gives them exactly what they want.

When Hillary Clinton called Trump’s supporters a “basket of deplorables,” she quite accurately described one segment of the political market that Orbán’s innovation targets. But the illiberal democrat speaks not only to reactionaries eager to restore traditional social hierarchies, but also to working-class voters fearful of unemployment and downward mobility. The rest of society – ethnic, religious, and ideological minorities, including the urban “creative class” – then forms the opposition.

Illiberal democracy subverts the idea – held by European social democrats and American Democrats since the Civil Rights era – that working-class and minority voters should forge a progressive alliance to counter conservatives. Intellectually, such a “stronger together” alliance makes sense; but it has three major flaws that Orbán and Kaczyński have exploited.

First, the economic interests of white (or native) working-class voters and those of minorities are often not aligned, because they are competing with one another for jobs and social benefits. This is especially true when slow growth turns the division of the economic pie into a zero-sum game. When funds are limited, should the Hungarian government spend money on educating Roma children, or on retraining displaced ethnic Hungarian workers?

Second, working-class voters often adhere to traditional conservative values. While a farmer in Eastern Poland or a factory worker in Michigan might be persuaded to support gay rights or women’s empowerment in exchange for economic redistribution, working-class voters have not supported such causes in large numbers.

Illiberal democracy is effective because it disentangles desired goods from unwanted add-ons, which is the essence of modern business innovation. Just as Airbnb allows us to find lodging without unnecessary hotel frills, illiberal democrats offer working-class voters economic help with no civil-rights strings attached.

Third, in many electorates, members of a social majority seem to value vilification of minorities as an intrinsic good, irrespective of wealth transfers. And as Yale University’s Amy Chua and others have shown, targeting minorities can be a highly effective tool for political mobilization.

In the business world, it is widely understood that successful products are not just useful; they also provide customers with a distinct experience. In illiberal democracy, that experience relies on the spectacle of denigrating various “others.” Indeed, many businesses, such as the companies that produce violent video games and reality-TV shows, have similarly exploited our basest instincts. Trump’s reality-TV show The Apprentice probably taught him how effective sowing division can be as a political-marketing tool.

Orbán’s insight, taken up by Kaczyński, was that an illiberal coalition comprising the working class and social reactionaries may be more viable than the old progressive project. Meanwhile, Hungary and Poland were ideal “early adopters” of this innovation, because both countries are ethnically homogeneous, which makes minorities particularly weak and vulnerable.

But illiberal-democratic politics can also win elections in diverse societies such as the US. Like many successful products, illiberal democracy offers voters a fundamentally straightforward value proposition. Contrary to progressive agendas, the illiberal message is easy to understand, not only because it is often mendaciously simple, but also because its two target groups’ conservative cultural values inherently align.

Moreover, illiberal democracy can ignore issues that it considers to be non-essential, such as human rights and the rule of law: its only imperative is to satisfy its customers. More surprisingly, illiberal democrats also do not seem to be overly concerned about economic growth. Hungary had a relatively robust recovery after the 2008 recession, but its economy is now slowing; and in both Poland and post-Brexit UK, the high economic costs of illiberal democracy are already apparent. If Trump pursues his promised trade protectionism in 2017, he will likely push the entire world into recession.

This could be illiberal democrats’ fatal flaw, or it could represent their most daring political bet of all. Building a dynamic, creative economy in a closed society may not even be possible, but this does not matter if electorates in mid- and high-income countries no longer consider growth to be as important as identity.

Like a lousy seat on a low-cost airline, or the frustration of assembling IKEA furniture, illiberal-democratic electorates may regard economic stagnation as an acceptable price to pay for a more familiar world – one where the state guarantees the dominant in-group’s sense of belonging and dignity, at the expense of “others.”

Those of us who have lived in Orbán and Kaczyński’s world understand that illiberal democracy is no temporary aberration. It has all the hallmarks of a carefully conceived, innovative political strategy that may prove to be sustainable.

Indeed, in a few decades we might look back and wonder how liberal democracy, with all its complexities and internal tensions, managed to hold on for so long – unless, that is, progressives treat 2016 as a wake-up call, and finally start to innovate, too.


Maciej Kisilowski is Associate Professor of Law and Public Management at Central European University, Budapest, Hungary, and co-author of Administrategy: A Guide to Strategic Management in Public Administration. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2017, published here with permission.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

98 Comments

Cool article. At last a bit of light on the subject.

It does seem to follow and expand Hayek's theory that rule by "experts" (ie academics and bureaucrats who think they know best) leads to stagnation and muddle, until the call for a strongman who can "get things done" goes out.

https://mises.org/system/tdf/Road%20to%20Serfdom%20in%20Cartoons.pdf?fi…

Up
0

Yes, Indeed.

In the business world, it is widely understood that successful products are not just useful; they also provide customers with a distinct experience. In illiberal democracy, that experience relies on the spectacle of denigrating various “others.”

Too true.

When a delicate snowflake is suddenly faced with a perceived reality so devastating as to be an existential crisis, the mind's reaction to dealing with this cognitive dissonance can be disabling for some. Certainly for The New York Times' flip-flopping, hate-mongering, fact-twisting, Keynesian poster-boy Paul Krugman it appears coping with "no" is not going well and his tirade last night in Twitter has us gravely concerned for his mental stability, which is ironic given how he began yesterday... Read more

Up
0

Thats a great link Roger..
Point 11... "The party takes over the country"...
Could our modern day equivalent be the unelected "bureaucracy" ..?
( the behavior of EQC ..comes to mind )

irrespective of right/left....liberal/conservative ....Labour/National,... which have become,somewhat, meaningless distinctions.

Over time... the "Govt" becomes the largest sector of the economy.... and we are ruled by more and more regulation .... and enslaved thru more tax and debt.

One might even paint the picture of Multinationals being the modern day version of small fiefdom Warlords...

Up
0

It only makes sense to me if I think in terms of "warring fiefdoms" as you say. There are a lot of these special interest groups, for the most part they are also the pillars of our society, junior doctors, nurses, teachers, consultant doctors, accountants, lawyers, police, the list goes on. All necessary but also advocating their special place and gaining cartel like privilege.

The unelected bureaucracy does seem to me to suffer from groupthink. They do not routinely consider what I call "silly ideas" that may be unacceptable or ineffective or downright stupid at first glance, but with a bit of creativity may lead to new solutions. They do not seem to be under any great urgency to actually solve problems, unlike the private sector where failure to solve a problem in a timely manner leads to severe consequences, like bankruptcy. It's more about "acting professionally" ie, protecting their career from risk by not even thinking about anything radical that might rock the boat.

Up
0

I get the impression that Maciej Kisilowski is not on the side of the Deplorables. He is basically saying that the Deplorables are at the gate and the establishment need to do something quick.

I'm not sure that this has been proven yet:
the high economic costs of illiberal democracy are already apparent.
I would have thought that the economic costs of liberal democracy were more apparent.

An interesting development is the forming of an ethno-scape throughout Europe and the English speaking world largely because of the Internet. Groups may now start to identify with people of similar characteristics rather than the same nationality. I can see this with the Russian hacking affair. Russians cheered when Trump won and their comrades in the ethno-scape across the world cheered as well. The Russian hacking scandal has not got much traction because many believe that even if true it was just cousins helping each other out.
The Syrian fiasco too has highlighted this. Assad is clearly more in line with classic Western values than the rebels in Aleppo. If more people saw him and his wife celebrating Christmas they would understand. This would not be allowed if the rebels won and the common people know that. They're not stupid.
This developing ethno-scape is not going to support fighting the Russians to help out moderate terrorists or anyone else for that matter. It would tend to prefer fighting alongside their cousins who they identify with because, let's face it, they are more deplorable than the liberal West because they still espouse conservative Western values.

Up
0

Very good points Zac.
I'm surprised that this is all some sort of a surprise to anyone and our supposed social sciences experts in particular.
While your working and middle class grafter sees their jobs and their communities future outsourced, privatised or robotised and alternative work filled by desperate third world labour the liberal, left wing elite and their politicians are obsessing over homosexual marriage, transvestite toilets or some other almost completely irrelevant nonsense. No money for your local library or pool or post office though.
The right wing on the other hand are doing all they can to outsource said jobs and fill the place up with cheap foreign labour. The people have had a gutsful!
The fact we need to pay the median worker a government subsidy to put a roof over their head and raise a family is a real insult to our hard working people. How has it come to be that fully half the people can no longer earn enough to cover basic living costs. Indicates to me that there is something seriously wrong with the whole structure of the economy.

Up
0

Good grief, that's enough. An "english-speaking ethno-scape" of "cousins" ? The English + Slavs on top?  Is this the new sanitised language of mono-culturalism, separatism, and religious superiority? Verwoerd would be proud. So how do you see that working out in New Zealand, especially for Polynesian citizens?

It is just smart-arsed talk that is anathema to New Zealand's inclusiveness. Why did you migrate here? Why promote such socially reactionary views here? Where woudl they end if anyone else listened to them? A terrible place.

Please keep the ethnic cleansing / superiority views off interest.co.nz. Yes, the internet allows such corrosion to fester, but it won't be on this forum.

Up
0

I'm sorry I thought this article was about the rise of illiberal democracy in Eastern Europe and how it has found its way into the West. I don't understand why you publish these controversial articles if you are not going to accept some discussion about why and how it is happening.

This article is about the growing right wing political movements of Europe and how they are gaining traction all over the West. We cannot pretend there is no common cultural and ethnic bond between East and West Europe, Russia and the English speaking world once known as Christendom. The royal families of these countries used to be all related! These old connections may be reconnecting and strengthening through the Internet. I don't think I used the word superiority. Europe, what was once known as Christendom, is under attack from within and without. This is why we are seeing the rise of these movements.

These connections are not much different to how the Chinese diaspora remain connected and keep their culture going globally. In a globalist/digital world groups are going to extend beyond the old national borders and create ethno-scapes. I don't see anything wrong with this. All people are free to do this and should if they want their culture to survive in a multi-cultural world.

Also I started primary school in NZ in 1965 and I clearly recall the attitudes of that time. NZ in the sixties was very nationalist. They even felt superior to Americans then and we were constantly taught this. Other parts of the world, well, it just went without saying generally.

Up
0

The unfortunate reality is that modern liberalism has become intolerant, inward looking, fearful and dogmatic - all of the things it pretends to despise.

Western Europe has some very testing times ahead with a massive influx of young Muslim male opportunists masquerading as refugees, millions of them, with a large percentage having a dangerous and destructive agenda. Is it any wonder the people are seriously concerned and, quite correctly, recognise the risks involved. Good luck if you imagine happy times ahead on that continent.

As far as we are concerned here in New Zealand I'm sure we can get along, Maori and Pakeha and others so long as any change is gradual (the recent influx is dangerously rapid in my view). One of my ancestors (Hongi Hika) held that view and helped pave the way for the relative peace between the races we enjoy today. Certainly in families that have been here for some time the bonds between the races are very strong through intermarriage and close contact and acceptance of each others culture over many generations. I think we are lucky in that and should be grateful for what we have here. ArohaNui.

Up
0

Good Grief yourself David Chaston. You don't have to agree. But your little rant there is right over the top. You might believe NZ is inclusive but then in the 60s it was a common view there was no "colour bar" in New Zealand. You need to get real about the actual tensions out there ( or in our face ) I don't get what Zach is saying, or agree ?? - but he is seeking some explanation outside the narrow walled in view and politically enforced myopia we endure in New Zealand. David -try to see over the sides of the rut.

Up
0

New Zealand inclusiveness? not from what I have seen through the many comments by New Zealanders about Asians & Immigrants in general on many NZ news sites.

New Zealand being inclusive is a myth just like the view of New Zealand once being egalitarian.

Up
0

I am often highly critical of Zachary's posts,but he has every right to be baffled by your hysterical response to his comments. I have read his post carefully and I just cannot read into it the 'ethnic cleansing/superiority views' that you attribute to it.
If you don't want robust critiques,then don't put up articles like this.

Up
0

They have No proof that Russia was involved in any of the hacking. Nobody should believe what American intelligence agencies say as they believed Iraq had WMD's & ties to Al-Qaeda to justify the Iraq war which was false.

American intelligence once thought that the Castro's weren't Communists before they took over Cuba.

One former British ambassador (Craig Murray) even said he met the person who leaked the emails & he isn't Russian. NSA whistleblower said the hack was done by U.S. intelligence officials & not by Russia.

The death of former DNC staffer Seth Rich is very suspicious as nothing at all was stolen from him when he was murdered.

The U.S. Government claimed North Korea hacked Sony but it actually was a group called the "Guardians of Peace" who hacked Sony not North Korea.

The whole Russia hack claims was all to start up a Cold War 2.0.

Russia was asked by the Syrian Government to help them fight the rebels but the U.S. had no legal foot to stand on in getting involved in Syria.

The U.S. also recently got involved in the war in Yemen.

Emails also revealed that Saudi Arabia & Qatar are funding ISIS. A leaked John Kerry audio revealed they intentionally let ISIS grow in Syria to remove Assad from power.

Not to mention Libya which Hillary Clinton was the major push of that conflict removing Gaddafi creating major chaos in that country as the Obama administration bypassed Congressional approval for that conflict.

Obama was attacked by both Republicans & Democrats for trying to protect Saudi Arabia from getting sued for their role in 9/11.

Up
0

The world has long experience of illiberal democracies. They begin with the gradual hardening of the political veins around the angry, the disenchanted, those dispossessed of various inherited certainties, those being pushed aside or whose lives, for one reason or another, are slipping or falling backwards.

Leaders emerge to give voice to the inarticulate, the frustrated, the ignorant, the bitter, the lost, the suffering. Power is consolidated via harnessing and championing hatred towards other ethnicities, classes or religious groups. If democracy is sufficiently weakened, or can be, the next step is tyranny. Tyranny admits no doubt, no questioning, no opposition. It seems strong. Liberal democracies, in comparison, seem weak, vulnerable, flabby, riven by internal division.

But it is just because liberal democracy allows variety, complexity, multiplicity, that it overcomes the rigidities of illiberalism. Simply, it has options. It has the possibilities of renewal, revitalisation – the basic terms of life. And in any contest the force with the greatest number of options will prevail. Its ideas and its capabilities will win through.

The see-saw is always there, swinging through decades and through generations. Power moves between the dispossessed and the privileged. Between greed and fear. And perhaps greed itself is rooted in kinds of fear. The most fearful seek the greatest power, the fiercest termination of the freedom of others. It is the essential and congruent disguise of fundamental weakness.

This said, in the most volatile and artificial nations - those made most complex by their included variety of ethnicities, customs, cultures, beliefs - it may also be the rule of the strongman that - for some period - ensures freedom of individual custom, culture, belief, etc. Syria, I've been told, was a place of remarkable freedom as long as no-one challenged Assad (father of the current President). In a detail, there were frames to car number-plates saying, in English, 'Thank God I'm Syrian'.

Human affairs admit of no perfection. And that is a strength, not a weakness. It may be that we are moving into phases of democratic illiberalism. But so long as the will to life exists, freedom will overcome fear of freedom. It’s what living means.

Up
0

A case could be made that the Western liberal democracies are becoming more illiberal. The Deplorables are the freedom fighters wishing to return the West to its true liberal roots.

An example would be the introduction of liberal legislation allowing gay marriage being followed by the need to introduce laws that criminalise the opinions and actions of those that are opposed to gay marriage.
More laws means less liberty. Even satire and parody can become hate crimes as things progress.

Up
0

Yes, Zachary, there's such a case to be made. If people want freedom for themselves, they must also genuinely accept the freedom of others.

Freedom, of course, can never be absolute. But unduly limiting 'my' freedom does not increase or protect 'yours'. It constrains everybody's.

When governments spend too much time legislating to protect people from one another, and from themselves, the result is illiberal, we all lose.

Up
0

Exactly.

“It’s hard to believe that modern democratic Europe has ended up in some kind of totalitarian or semi-totalitarian democracy where our leaders have a special definition of what is democracy – and if you don’t agree with it, you will be put on the list. I think it’s very, very alarming and very disturbing,” she said. Read more

Up
0

great link Stephen.... For me it shows the subtle corruption of things by the "bureaucratic mind "....

Up
0

A link from RT ? You are being played.

Up
0

I doubt you are qualified to know. I have at least directly engaged with communist bloc central banks during the cold war on behalf of a US G-SIB financial entity based in London.

Up
0

I too 'engaged' with communist bloc companies during the cold war (near the end) and by implication their governments - sometimes I couldn't tell the difference. Maybe not at the high level you claim. I drank too much doing this. Many people did (drank too much and/or engaged.). I spent a few years on this in and out of eastern european countries. I am not claiming qualification on this basis. And I equally doubt your experience qualifies you to understand (sympathise?) with current Slavic feelings of persecution / threat for their way of life which seems to claim can only be maintained through ethnic purity. What I remember / recoil from is the throwback attitudes. It will undo them. The West progressed, they are stuck in a WWII social-thinking time warp. They desperately need to be more open to progress. Doesn't look likely. They are exporting corruption and oligopoly. The worry is, some of us are buying it.

Up
0

Good luck with that, but don't presume to think for me.

Up
0

David.... I agree with what u say about east eur countries...AND...what has that got to do with the RT piece that you slurred by implying it was some kind of tainted propaganda...??? ( that we are being played )

I read the article and the linked original ...and it seemed ok to me... ie.. All the power to that danish journalist for expressing a view and asking intelligent questions..??

Your..."being played" response wasn't so intelligent.... and is kinda ironic... because in a subtle way it feels like u are trying to play us... :)

just my view ...of course.....

Up
0

David, have you ever considered that you might be being played. There are many many wonderful websites giving different countries points of view. I believe the only way that being well informed is to read them. Yes, I agree they are playing us but our sources are playing us too so it is wise to be very very selecctive about what you are believe and take most of it with a grain of salt.

Up
0

Well globalisation and it's adherents still rule ( or are trying to keep ruling), they just have a couple of pests in the way currently such as Brexit & Trump to depose of, then the relentless march will continue. Also the global order needs to remove Trump so they can remove other enemies that question the orthodoxy.

Up
0

Corruption and it's consequences are endemic and evident in all our daily lives.

A similar picture emerges a few miles south of the leafy streets of Hampstead and Highgate down in Harley Street. The waiting rooms of the UK’s leading fertility clinics, orthodontists and cosmetic enhancement consultancies play host to wealthy families from the Middle East and the former Soviet bloc. From private schools to private healthcare, from Mercedes dealerships to Michelin-starred restaurants, the capital has benefited from a massive influx of foreign money.

A Deutsche Bank analysis in 2015 of the UK’s balance of payments data suggested that since the mid-1970s much of this money has come from one country in particular. The bank’s report noted: “There is strong evidence that a good chunk of the UK’s £133bn of hidden capital inflows is related to Russia.”

It appears more than a coincidence that much of the money has washed up following a concerted effort aimed at enticing the super wealthy to live in the UK. Eight years ago, in return for investing £2m, foreign investors were offered a “golden visa” allowing them to live in the UK. After five years they qualified for permanent residency.

Analysis by Transparency International shows that, out of the 3,048 visas granted since the scheme began in 2008, 60% were awarded to Chinese and Russian nationals. Read more

Up
0

People can jump up and down, and I will join them, come the day gay marriage is made compulsory, until then, they have zero right to do so.

Up
0

I wish people would get over the idea that their special selves are being persecuted when all that's happened is that the rights and privileges they've always enjoyed are extended to everyone.

Up
0

I suppose you are a supporter of bigamy then Kapapo? Esp if they all love one another? Some countries people have this 'right' already, but not yet in NZ.

Gay marriage was never about 'rights'. Marriage isn't a human 'right', even the UN concede this. It was about changing the definition of the word 'marriage' from just being between one man and one woman.

Up
0

No, but it is a civil right.

It may have escaped your notice, but the definition of marriage still encompasses those between men and women. It wasn't taken away, and couples are having woman & man marriages all over the place, completely unhindered. Haven't you been watching the news or reading Bride magazine?

As for bigamy, looks like you're either confused or trying to change the definition. Irony!

Up
0

Your response illustrates in part exactly what this article is in part referring too and you miss the point.

In the gay marriage example (but there are many others) Civil Unions fixed the 'civil rights' issue you are referring to. But they wanted the word 'marriage' as they thought it would legitimise their relationship in the eyes of many millions who hold to a christian/biblical ethic and consider it immoral. You may disagree but its really a value clash. Many millions in the west align more with Putin's values than with values of their own state. But it seems you don't get this, there is something more fundamental going on. Like the left complain about Trump and how hes a bad bad man, but they don't get it, its not about Trump, its a movement. Trump was just in the right place at the right time.

I am not the one who is confused. Instead of moral legitimization of gay marriage theres a pull in the other direction. For example, where I live in East Auckland one of the large churches that lets community groups use their large auditorium now allows no outside groups to use it as they cant shut it just for gay marriages so they have closed it for all outside activities, there are lots of other examples. Saying that these things have no consequence for anyone isn't correct but as Winston Peters said, we as a nation were never allowed to have a real rational debate over such and then vote as a nation. In your values worship of God is equal with worship of Satan or money or whatever. But for millions of people (in some countries outright easy majorities) they don't hold all things equal, nor will they. Ever. For some people right and wrong are absolutes.

Up
0

Where this goes spectacularly wrong is in your oh-so-arrogant-and self-centred claim that marriage somehow belongs to those of a Christian/Biblical ethic, and that anyone needs or wants to legitimise marriages in their eyes. Who cares what they think? Their religion is entirely their own business, and they can believe what they want and follow whatever rituals they want and recognise whatever holy days they want. But somehow you have the unwarranted arrogance to believe that the religious should be able to impose purely religious rules on people who don't follow that religion, in a secular society? Marriage isn't owned by any religion. It's a civil and legal matter. Those who want to do the religious and ceremonial bits are entirely free to do so. But you don't want equality, do you? You want to be able to persecute anyone who isn't in your particular club and restrict their civil rights.

Up
0

"economist.", this is not a forum to push your social agenda, or insult others. Move on to economic issues. Final warning.

Up
0

Here is an idea for you, we have Hindu marriages, we have Muslim marriages, we have "open" marriages even, we have any number of ways to define the word "marriage' how about you just label yours either a heterosexual marriage or maybe a christian marriage (maybe even the denomination).
What on earth is your problem with people who do not fit your restrictive idea of what "marriage" is, for crying out loud? As I said before, get back to us when gay marriage is made compulsory.
I really do not know what all the fuss is about over this, seriously, it is pathetic.

Up
0

Reminds me of the time I happened to be on the spot at the right time and got to see chimpanzee fruit snack time at the zoo. Most of them went in, ate their apples and bananas with much enjoyment, then went back to swinging on the ropes and having a good time. Except for one little shite who sneaked off into a corner and hid his share so that he could get them out and eat them in front of the others later.

Up
0

I have a grandchild who does something similar to his sister, may be on the verge of figuring out that she doesn't actually care, not as food driven as he is.

Up
0

My little brother and a few cousins did it all the time with iceblocks. Stash it away in the freezer while nobody's looking, then get it out later and gloat over the kids who don't have one.

Up
0

I really do not know what all the fuss is about over this

That's because you have entirely missed the point of my first comment.

Up
0

Try reading Zachary Smiths comment above PocketAces. Then you might get it.

Up
0

I suspect it is you who has missed the point. When people claim the freedom to restrict others' life choices (gay marriage being this example, but there are many others) they misunderstand the concept of freedom entirely. Usually it is funadmentalist reglious types, or social reactionaries (often both) that want to impose these types of social restrictions. Being free to socially restrict others is a corruption. Its a power game, nothing 'free' about it.

Up
0

Oh and on the idea of polygamy or polyandry, not my cup of tea, but if I am to seriously examine my thoughts on that, I guess I would have to say it is probably okay for those that seek it. I don't have to understand it fully to accept something. I would want to know that anyone in that situation was there totally voluntarily. Polyandry might help sort out the overpopulation of the planet. Could be a nightmare legally when any split occurred.

Up
0

You still don't get it do you?

Why would you have to 'know that anyone in that situation was there totally voluntarily'? What business is it of yours whether its voluntarily or not? What do you have against arranged marriages? Why do you have such a restrictive view? If you disagree with them then that's your concern. Why push your values onto others who don't want them?

Up
0

'arranged' does not necessarily equal 'involuntary'.
.
A person - most likely a woman, or a girl - being forced to marry against her will, isn't right. there is a power imbalance in such an arrangement which curtails the freedom of the women and girls involved.
The fact that this is practice in certain cultures does not make it right. Culture is learned behaviour. It's not sacred.
As a whole, humanity should try to move towards enlightenment, not regress to the dark ages.

Up
0

Ah, no, it's you that doesn't get it, you are the one trying to force your views onto others to the point you would deny them the right to marry.
Arranged marriages, odd to me, but if they are voluntary I can live with it, now forced marriage is a whole another story, just as it would be should gay marriage be made compulsory. Full circle, bye, bye

Up
0

I can think of a few scenarios where people should not be allowed to marry. But anyway it is a bit unfair to respond to economist because he has effectively been gagged and restricted to only commenting about things to do with finance. Although interesting human scenarios can result in an economic impact. I was reading that a lot of people desiring gender reassignment are wanting it to be funded by the public purse much like we would correct birth defects.

Up
0

People have zero rights to jump up and down? Would have been good to know a bit earlier. As far as I am aware we always allowed people to jump up and down before.

Up
0

@ Zachary; You have to admit that some of your comments and extream idealistic views have been really 'cringe worthy'.

This is why I love the Scots they always know how to take big bullies down; check this out;-

BBC article: Donald Trump inauguration TV listing goes viral
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-38635518

The president-elect, normally quick to react to criticism, has not responded to the piece so far. :P

Up
0

I got some good upvote counts on this thread. More than I normally do. I am in a difficult position where I have to be very careful how I present an argument because we live under a semi tyranny. I sail really close to the edge and this results in comments coming across as a bit schizophrenic at times.
With the Trump thing you link to it seems they haven't learned that such comparisons only make Trump stronger. Every similar hit piece has only improved Trump's popularity.

Up
0

Ah yes, the whole 'pc gone mad' argument.
Which is not an argument, it's a whinge about not being able to be racist/sexist/bigoted without experiencing a (well deserved) backlash.
.
White does not make right, nor does might, nor does wealth. I get your opinions, I really do. I don't agree with them though, and less and les people do, these days. They are opinions rooted in fear.
Fear of having to give up white privilege, fear of having to give up male privilege, fear of having to share your wealth. And populist 'leaders' are playing on those fears, as a lot of people feel disenfranchised. Some rightly so, but I don't include you in this basket.
.
As far as I can see, you're a white supremacist apologist. Shades of Weimar Germany.

Up
0

Political correctness does exist DFTBA and it cripples thinking. Its when something is apparent and true, but cannot be mentioned because it is politically uncomfortable - on some subjects dangerous to say. Some places it can get you killed. Bit like the term "elephant in the room" and Elephants can go 'mad' too.
A week or two ago I mentioned the high representation of Maori in prison, as a target for Bill English's social investment - mentioning simply that percentage upsets folk - who get accusatory and go into attack mode - but it's just a true number.
"pc gone mad' is a valid description of what happens, and political correctness prevents some seeing truths.

Up
0

Quoting a factual statistic isn't pc o non pc.
.
Claiming white people in general, and English speaking people in particular, are better than anybody else, is untrue, and quite racist.
.
If people have an emotional response to a factual statement, then that's not pc gone mad, that's people not being able to argue and debate a point dispassionately.
.
The statistic itself is not in question - the reason why this statistic has come about is a point for debate, one we will disagree on, no doubt.
.
You need to be able to distinguish when your debating opponent uses shut down tactics, and these might come in both shouting 'bigot' when you're quoting a fact, or shouting 'pc gone mad' when you're pointing out somebody's thinking/arguing is bigoted.
.
The percentage of Maori in prison upsets me, your quoting of that fact does not.

Up
0

Oh Really. Go back and read your comments. You say the statistic is nto in question - but you were the one who questioned it. You point out that people come in shouting bigot - but you were using terms such as white superiority and male superiority. You say they are shouting 'PC gone mad' Actually you were the first to introduce that term to the stream. Time to go and have a good hard look in the mirror

Up
0

Not quite.
I genuinely had no idea about the stats, and the question was an honest one. The link was then provided, so I had a look.
I never denied the percentage, I merely queried it.
.
Pointing out that being white comes with automatic privileges and being male comes with automatic privileges, is not the same as shouting bigot. It's stating a fact.
.
Yes, I was the one - in this comment stream - to introduce 'PC gone mad', as that's what's Zachary was implying: that the backlash against his opinions was pc gone mad. it's not though.
.
I question my own beliefs, ideals, and theories on a near daily basis. I make efforts to remain open minded so I can change my opinion when presented with new information.
.
I have, on occasion, had a 180 change of mind on some things (prostitution, for example). These changes and this flexibility are all due to constant dialogue with people I respect, whether or not I agree with them.

Up
0

"Pointing out that being white comes with automatic privileges and being male comes with automatic privileges, is not the same as shouting bigot. It's stating a fact."

Wrong. It is exactly the same.
Give us one piece of evidence that supports the notion that being white automatically grants privilege.

Don't take the high road in this argument. As per your nonsensical arguments the other week, you are just as guilty of discriminatory views on the basis of ethnicity. In fact you were the only person in that previous thread arguing that we should actively discriminate on the basis of ethnicity.

Up
0

I fail to see where I argued that particular fact.
.
With regards to white privilege, you can start by reading Wikipedia on the subject.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege

and this article talks about the effect class has, too

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gina-crosleycorcoran/explaining-white-pri…
.
About the high road: not quite sure what you mean about 'taking the high road'.

I aim to be civil in my debates/arguments, and debate the point, not the person. The exception is Zachary Smith, whose ideas and opinions I find so disturbing I feel compelled to stand up against them. But again, apart from calling him a white supremacist apologist (which I think he is), I have not slurred or besmirched his character or persona in any way.
.
I can assure you that I don't feel 'better' or 'superior' than anybody else on this forum. I come here to learn, primarily, and to give my opinion, secondly, and then only if I think it contributes to the general debate.

Up
0

...Cue where you stated that all white people should be penalised for actions taken by white people over a century ago. You said the quantifiable privileges that non whites receive were not in fact privileges or in any way discriminatory.
That shows a very poor understanding of what privilege really is.

What I am asking for is cold hard evidence of a quantifiable privilege that white people have.
Wikipedia and some liberal Huffington Post piece are not evidence of this.

I say you take the high road because, like all SJWs, you proclaim to advocate equality - just not equality for anyone who is white.

Up
0

That's twisting my words a little bit.
.
Actions taken by white people over a century ago (are you referring to land theft that happened in this country back then? Or are you referring to the European age of expansionism/colonialism? Or to the fact that the USA is largely built on the backs of non-white AND white slaves?) have undeniably granted white people privileges.
The Wikipedia piece actually has a lot of references to literature you can read on the subject. Plenty of cold hard evidence there, if you care to read up on the subject.
And why dismiss the Huffington Post article out of hand?
.
Not sure I know what SJW is.
And I do proclaim equality: the fact (yes, fact) that white people have an unfair advantage due to the colour of their skin and this world's reasonably recent history, means hat if you're advocating equality for all, it also means white people have to relinquish their unfair advantage.
Until you agree with the fact that white people are, in fact, born with inherent privilege, you will not agree with this last point.
.
That doesn't mean that I'm wrong, or that I'm a racist.

Up
0

I'm not twisting your words at all. You should go back to the previous article and read your comments.

Okay then. Like I have said numerous times...Name one quantifiable privilege that white people maintain...
What unfair advantage do whites have? There is nothing in policy, whatsoever.

The Huffington post article is anecdotal.

Up
0

You're looking for a quantifiable positive, whereas a lot of white privilege comes in the absence of negatives:
.
1) Your wages aren't lower because of your skin colour. People of colour (POC) experience this negative throughout their lives.
2) People don't make assumptions about your intelligence because of your skin colour.
3) You are not seen as a representative of your race. Something African American men could only hope for.
4) Products are geared and produced towards you. 'Skin coloured' or 'nude' items, such as plasters or shoes, are white skin colour.
5) Female beauty standards are geared towards light skin. Ask any black or Asian woman/girl about the pressure to be 'white' in order to be found beautiful. Even if a model is not white, her features will be very European, not a representative of an African type, or an Asian type.
6) Police won't target you purely based on your skin colour.
7) Your skin colour means it's not questioned why you get that very nice high paying ultra powerful job. It's just assumed it's because you're qualified for it (just odd how the majority of white men in the western world are so much more qualified than everybody else)
8) if you're white, you're an expat. never an immigrant.
9) History....what is taught in schools, is predominately about white people. You are represented everywhere, and feel you have a right to exist everywhere. POC do not experience this.
.

Up
0

1 - Where is the evidence that people of colour have lower wages? There is none. Just like the supposed male-female 'wage' gap. Sure earnings are different, but there is no causation arising from skin colour or gender.
2 - Of course people make assumptions about my intelligence on the basis of skin colour. They think it converges towards the entire population mean. If not that's a fault of poor statistical understanding, not discrimination.
3 - I am always seen as representative of my race. You prove this by assuming I am somehow privileged.
4 - I wear black or brown shoes nearly every day. Does that mean I'm not wearing the correct colour?
5 - Do not confuse genetic attraction with conscientious discrimination. The fact that your genetics predispose you to be attracted to certain physical features is not racist. That is like saying because I am attracted to females I am by default homophobic.
6 - Police target criminals. If people of different race don't want to be targeted, they need to cease the statistically higher crime rate among their demographic. The answer is not to have police stop chasing them.
7 - On the contrary. It almost is if you are in a contemporary competitive environment with minority applicants. Data out of the USA and UK suggests that white males are significantly disadvantaged when contesting for jobs against female and minority candidates. Plus, also look at the pseudo quota systems we and other countries have.
8 - Rubbish. That is semantic misrepresentation. I was most definitely an immigrant when I moved to Germany and had to continuously jump through hoops. The refugees at the same time didn't...Plus they got this cool title that semantically meant we had to be sympathetic to them.
9 - Rubbish again. The curriculum in New Zealand is heavily weighted towards Indigenous history. I bet most young children in New Zealand know the story of Maui in detail but would struggle to answer who Abel Tasman was.

Up
0

Then DFTBA analyse your very own comment please as to if it has any racist thought. You said "As far as I can see, you're a white supremacist apologist"
Seems to me there are a lot of colour assumptions in that one.

Up
0

DFTBA , I really feel that you have 'jumped the shark' when you accuse someone of being a White supremacist because he suggests that the best business decision for a migrant or a poor country to make is learn English knowing full well that it is recognised as the lingua franca of the time period. Also a reverence and fondness for one's own ethnicity, culture and language is perfectly acceptable for all other groups and should be for Europeans too. A recognition that Russians, whose core culture stems from a tribe called the Rus' who were Vikings and who later made enormous contributions to Western culture, are closer to the majority of Kiwis in many more ways than some others is hardly controversial. I know why you are doing this and I am absolutely opposed to people like you.

Up
0

Zachary,

I saw a post from you quoting the economist Eugene Fama. Now,as i assume you know,he was a firm supporter of the Efficient Market Hypothesis(EMH). A key part of EMH is the 'Law of One Price" and that was comprehensively debunked by Richard Thaler and others with reference to Closed End Funds(Investment Trusts) and other areas of the market. I recommend that you read Misbehaving, The making of Behavioural Economics by Thaler.

Up
0

Cool article. Well worth a careful reread and a good think.

Up
0

I have had my reread and a few thoughts. Kisilowski portrays the tension between the workers-middle class and the minorities. I can agree but it's also useful to think of the tension between the workers-middle class and the elite. It's not all about minorities.
The elite -them inside the beltway - have captured the narrative and promote a 'better economy' and 'increased GDP as the way forward. Those not in the elite want incomes and security. Those deplorables have come to belatedly realise that increasing the GDP etc does not give them incomes and security. (eg. Rogernomics). Often it has given them decreased incomes, options and security.
As they have woken up to this they have voted accordingly. therefore Brexit and Trump.
Kisilowski is right that when folk feel threatened (their incomes and more importantly security ) they are keen to ditch the frills being foisted on them by the inside group.

Up
0

would we have some immunity against a strongman regime having lived through the Muldoon years?although our media is still pretty tame and stand by when investigate journalists are sidelined.there is access to news from plenty ofdifferent international sources, that some say are all lies but can turn out to be true,to form our own opinions.

Up
0

What about NZ. National policies giving rise to inequalities in NZ. May be good for short term but unreapareable damage in long term. Taking away dream of average kiwi giving rise to social tension.

Article today in Nzherald and the root cause will be nonresident or funded by overseas

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11782…

Result of such one deal is that price in that area goes up by 40% or 20% in a day. Still will Bill English deny is to be seen. Remember election is not far away and Bill English is set to repeat his perfomance.

Up
0

What about NZ. National policies giving rise to inequalities in NZ. May be good for short term but unreapareable damage in long term. Taking away dream of average kiwi giving rise to social tension.

Article today in Nzherald and the root cause will be nonresident or funded by overseas

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11782…

Result of such one deal is that price in that area goes up by 40% or 20% in a day. Still will Bill English deny is to be seen. Remember election is not far away and Bill English is set to repeat his perfomance.

Up
0

Who would be stupid enough to work for a living? The value of wages have been totally destroyed by the RBNZ forever cutting the OCR to repeatedly indulge in failed ideological nonsense that claims narrow CPI inflation is inversely associated with falling official interest rates. How about considering rising incomes policies for the masses rather than state sponsored socialist type wealth redistribution solutions that reward a narrow cohort of speculators?

Up
0

A narrow cohort of speculators? Therein lies the problem. If 63% of households are owner occupied, then 63% of households are speculators who appear to benefit from our collective over-indebtedness. They may not be speculators by choice, but the mandarins in charge of silly policy make them so.

Up
0

Stephen - assume you'll be voting for Gareth Morgan at the election then? Or if you're a homeowner benefiting from status quo, self-interest will determine voting priority (over policy that benefits NZ society as a whole).

Up
0

IO...Why would he..???

I don't read ,anywhere, that Gareth is going to address the fundamental issue that Stephen alludes to..??
The only thing he offers...is another tax , which in my view might transfer a little wealth but thats all.
Fixing things around the edges...( ie. band aid solutions)...generally result in unintended consequences... etc.

Sounds like you are a Gareth man..??? He lost me with his rationale of imputed earnings... ie.."pretend income".

Up
0

..the rationale of inputed earnings is simple. Levels the playing field for tax. A renter pays accomodation cost from tax paid income, a home owner does'nt. It aint that hard to grasp.

Up
0

Don't u think a homeowner pays for his house out of taxable income..??

When you accept the idea of taxing the imputed income of a perceived benefit of something, ... then you have a mandate to tax any and all perceived benefits.. Whatever takes your fancy.
(I say perceived benefit because what you might see as a benefit I might see as a cost )
( as u mentioned, accommodation is a cost... Gareth perceives it as a benefit )

I accept the rationale of a Capital gains tax..... but not this Alice in wonderland idea of taxing income streams that don't exist in reality...

I dont agree with Gareths point of view...... so yeah... for me very hard to grasp.!!

Up
0

Own goal. You still dont get it. $700k worth of house giving me (say) $500 of value each week in accomodation = no tax paid. If I have $700k in bank, interest return is taxed but the rent i pay comes out of taxable income.

Extrapolate this down to a renter trying to save for a home, and he is well tax disadvantaged.

And it extends to our welfare system. Own a home, get full benefit. Don't own a home but have enough savings invested, no benefit due to income test failed and no accom sups due to asset test (home exempted so home owner gets it)

There is a reason why home ownership is falling... the tax/welfare system is loaded against the non owner.

Up
0

Like I said Rastus... This is Alice in wonderland taxing of a "pretend " income..

Gareth plans to apply this "idea" to all assets...

Imagine a start up business that has to buy alot of equipment..
From day 1 Gareth will determine an "imaginary income" that the equipment should earn ( imputed earnings )... and he will tax that "pretend" income..

And you think this is fair and reasonable..??

As far as I know, Gareth plans to do this to even the family car.... We all know that cars are a 'cost'..and yet Gareth wants to tax the imputed income of the car..

Like i said... whatever takes ones fancy... If Gareth gets the mandate ..he can conceivably tax anything.

My view is that the issues are more systemic and fundamental than simply perceived "tax disadvantages".

AND...my view is that taxing "pretend" income streams is going down the rabbit hole... somewhat.

Why didn't Gareth simply come out with a Capital gains tax... or a land tax...etc??

Up
0

Youre still not thinking right. Your house is providing an income. You just happen to be the landlord and tenant and thus net both revenue and income off and thus pay no tax.

A renter cannot do this. So the cash he has invested gets taxed before he pays his rent. This is the unfairness that a renter pays over a home owner.

If you can't get your heard around this concept I'm afraid i can't help you. if you can and dont like it, then fair enough. But to argue nothing is out of kilter re tax and fairness for renters is just being in denial - vested interest perhaps?

Up
0

Isn't everyone free to buy a house! Somewhere affordable.
To count your ownership of your family home as ' income' is ridiculous...

Up
0

Ummmmm check the declining home ownership rates and the ability of those holding property to always outbid and outsave rentiers. You have avoided discussing the logic of the tax. Your two liner adds nothing.

Up
0

Well, the first point covered the fact that all NZers (& everyone else the planet it seems) is legally able to buy a house in NZ to live in. So any perceived disadvantage by renters is not forced upon them.
Second point was: the tax is so outrageous that it would be politically unelectable. The logic of the 'tax' could be applied to car ownership (gives privileges so no need for taxis or buses etc), and all other consumer assets.
Affordability is a problem, but other factors of choice also lead people to become lifelong renters.

Up
0

Legality has nothing to do with it, its the inherrent bias towards the have's via the tax system.

Cars..umm no. We don't all need a car, there are plenty of them, we have competition and plenty of choice. No one is being locked ouit of car ownership due to tax bias, there is a price to suit all. So a silly analogy, though cars in NZ are often a home.

You second point is another silly one. "Its so outrageous its politically unacceptable" . Beside the point and not the issue. That aside, it is perhaps becoming more and more accpetble as home ownership rates drop.

And you still havent explained why home owners are justified in the tax break over renters (or do you still not comprehend how this is the case)?

Up
0

I wasn't aware of any tax break that I have received. I needed a place to live. I bought a house. I pay it off with tax paid income. Can you let me know how I can apply for my tax refund?

Up
0

Mr Morgan has clearly identified and explained the tax distortion/advantage to home owners. No point in me re-explaining it, it seems it is beyond your ability to comprehend.

Ask yourself - if Morgan is so wrong about this tax distortion, why are the tax experts not contradicting him? They aint, because they also know it is an issue, but as most are also doing well from this distortion, happily sit back and let the uninformed, such as yourself, do their utmost to maintin the unfairness of the status quo.

Clearly you consider you tax knowledge beyond that of Morgan. As for you refund, it's in the value of your home...do you want the rentiers to front you with yet another?

Up
0

Will the renters pay special tax on the discount they get paying rent which is lower than the investment return on an asset of, say, $600,000?

Up
0

Youre getting sillier and more off issue by the post.

Up
0

But renters do enjoy the use of an expensive asset, and often pay far less for the monthly use of that asset than someone paying the 'rent' (interest) on the equivalent in money.
Eg renter pays $600 a week for a house on North Shore valued at 950k.
950k x 4.5% interest = $780 weekly
So the renter gets a benefit.
Now, one of their problems is that they don't save/invest the difference in their subsidised living conditions.
That's not the fault of the homeowner, who is forced to keep their repayments up.

Up
0

I give up. You are just not hard wired to understand tax.

Up
0

Maybe Gareth Morgan should just join the Greens.
He may get more economic synergy there.

Up
0

And with that one comment you prove Rastus' point

Up
0

Just testing the waters. NZ appears to be very two faced. 'Oh this housing situation is bad, it's causing inequality, what about our children, what about foreign ownership, oh that house flipping for capital gains is so wrong'. Then these same people who try to claim the moral high ground receive their latest valuation, see their property has increased by another $100,000 go out and buy champagne and a new Audi to celebrate - then continue to vote for national so that the party can roll on.

Up
0

I don't think they're two faced. There's a lot of young people that are seeing any possibility of buying a house slipping away faster than they can save.

The ones recklessly borrowing and spending are victims of the wealth effect. People believe they are wealthy and spend more just because their house has gone up in value. They aren't wealthy or affluent just financially ignorant.

Look at this poor redditor's parents who are talking about retiring debt free in 4 years when they are instead in a dire financial situation with no likelihood of retirement. While they are in the US there are plenty of people in NZ in this position spending more than they earn.

https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/5o8t9f/need_help_just…

Up
0

Good points dictator - I don't disagree. The challenge we face is that those same financially ignorant people have the right to vote, and in NZ there appear to be a lot of them...

I'm beginning to comprehend what Churchill was meaning when he said: 'the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter'.

Up
0

No. I will be voting for Winston. I own the same debt free home I bought 18 years ago with cash. Hence I do not enjoy the benefits of leveraged residential property speculation. But I am a long standing, under employed, beneficiary of sovereign bond trading rewards delivered to me on an unearned basis because of global declining official interest rates.

Note my comment posted yesterday.

Moreover, those in receipt of unearned capital gains gleaned from rising bond prices, discounting citizen funded future, but static above market yield coupon payments, spawned a new class of wealthy investors/traders. Seepage to other asset classes for those eligible to be in receipt of excessive debt funding also benefited more than most. Read more

Up
0

Risks and Opportunities for 2017 - http://thesaker.is/risks-and-opportunities-for-2017/
The Neocon’s declaration of war against Trump - http://thesaker.is/the-neocons-declaration-of-war-against-trump/

Up
0