A decent way of differentiating between right/left wing basic economics?

[Simple_Linctus]

Because I am inclined that way, I often think about how I am going to explain things to my kids. Anyway, while this is is certainly not how I would differentiate the entirety of the difference between left and right wing, I would love it if left/right wing represenatives (necessarily almost certainly self appointed) commented upon the following:

[ul]
[li]The left wing believes that the “few” rely upon the work of the “many”[/li][li]The right wing believes that the “many” rely upon the initiative of the “few”[/li][/ul]

[elucidator]

nm

[eschereal]

If you are talking American politics, you characterization is no apt.

The left tends toward “we are all in this together”

The right tends toward “every man for himself” (no convenient gender neutral form for that).

The left generally favors prophylaxis while the right generally prefers litigation. Both sides seem to accept the idea that avarice and ambition are positive forces, or at least requisite evils. And if you get duped, you are usually SoL: stupidity is a vital economic resource, the wily typically prevail.

There is a lot of breadth and nuance to any person’s views, to distill it down to one or two enthymemes obscures that and leads to divisive bitterness.

[Der_Trihs]

@For You

The right tends toward “every man for himself” (no convenient gender neutral form for that).

“The war of all against all”?

[davidm]

@Simple_Linctus

[ul]
[li]The left wing believes that the “few” rely upon the work of the “many”[/li][li]The right wing believes that the “many” rely upon the initiative of the “few”[/li][/ul]

I think this is correct as far as it goes.

The left sees those at the top financially as having benefited from the labor of the many, some of whom have worked hard and received very little in exchange, in many cases not even receiving enough to survive.

The right sees those at the top as innovators and job creators who make it possible for people to receive compensation that is appropriate for what they contribute. Whether or not what they receive is enough to live on is not relevant, all that matters is the economic value of what they do.

There’s a lot more to it than that, but what you’ve said is not incorrect.

[Randvek]

@For You

If you are talking American politics, you characterization is no apt.

The left tends toward “we are all in this together”

The right tends toward “every man for himself” (no convenient gender neutral form for that).

Close, but I see it this way:

When things are working well, these is no difference between right and left economics in America. It’s when problems occur that there is a difference.

Right: if a problem occurs, the market will correct itself. If the market doesn’t correct itself, it’s probably because the government is somehow preventing it from doing so (taxes too high, too many regulations, whatever).

Left: if a problem occurs, the market will correct itself. If the market doesn’t correct itself, the government needs to step in and force a correction (by adjusting taxes, adding regulation, whatever).

The right thinks that government should never interfere in the market and the left thinks it should interfere as little as necessary to keep things moving. Note that, by world standards, these are far-right and moderate-right positions, really, so it can be hard to tell the difference.

[IdahoMauleMan]

@davidm

I think this is correct as far as it goes.

The left sees those at the top financially as having benefited from the labor of the many, some of whom have worked hard and received very little in exchange, in many cases not even receiving enough to survive.

The right sees those at the top as innovators and job creators who make it possible for people to receive compensation that is appropriate for what they contribute. Whether or not what they receive is enough to live on is not relevant, all that matters is the economic value of what they do.

There’s a lot more to it than that, but what you’ve said is not incorrect.

The Left sees a “top” with “benefits”. The Left sees “the labor of many”. To them, people “contribute” or “receive” as determined by some large, vaguely defined system.

And there are victims. Lots of victims. I almost forgot about that.

The Libertarians see an open playing field for everyone, where they should be able to compete on their own merits, acting in accordance with their own desires, under the uniform application of the rule of law.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@For You

The left tends toward “we are all in this together”

The right tends toward “every man for himself” (no convenient gender neutral form for that).

True to at least some extent. One explanation I’ve found useful is that, in terms of game theory, liberals tend to be “cooperators” and conservatives tend to be “defectors.” Here’s how William Poundstone explains it in his book Prisoner’s Dilemma:

Arguably, the prisoner’s dilemma is behind much political debate. Conservatives and liberals don’t really want such different things. Liberals don’t enjoy paying taxes, and conservatives don’t like seeing the homeless encamped in railroad stations. Why then do reasonable people differ so widely in their politics?

As the term is most commonly used in U.S, politics, a liberal is a “cooperator”: someone willing to put himself at risk for exploitation in order to increase the common good. Liberals favor paying taxes that go to help the homeless in the expectation that the homeless will not fritter away such aid but will use it to get on their feet. A liberal may favor cutting back in defense expenditures in the hope that other countries will do the same. By cooperating, a liberal expects to create a society with fewer homeless, or fewer missiles–something that everybody wants, but which will not come about through anyone’s unilateral effort.

Conservatives are often “defectors” in that they seek to guarantee themselves the best outcome possible on their efforts alone. Taxes may be squandered, so the safest course is to let people keep as much of their income as possible and decide individually how best to spend it. Enemy nations may exploit a unilateral arms freeze to gain the upper hand. Conservative political positions avoid the “sucker payoffs” of welfare cheats and arms treaty violators.

[Lightnin]

@IdahoMauleMan

The Left sees a “top” with “benefits”. The Left sees “the labor of many”. To them, people “contribute” or “receive” as determined by some large, vaguely defined system.

Not quite. The Left sees the value in earning your own way, but doesn’t see fit to reward those who didn’t earn their place in life. And if you fall down, they don’t want you to starve to death before you get back on your feet.

@IdahoMauleMan

And there are victims. Lots of victims. I almost forgot about that.

There probably wouldn’t be so many victims if the predators weren’t in charge.

@IdahoMauleMan

The Libertarians see an open playing field for everyone, where they should be able to compete on their own merits, acting in accordance with their own desires, under the uniform application of the rule of law.

And if you inherit your wealth, you clearly deserved it, and you should continue to be rewarded for picking the right parents. If you’re poor, well… you get to help those rich guys get richer.

[puddleglum]

@Randvek

Close, but I see it this way:

When things are working well, these is no difference between right and left economics in America. It’s when problems occur that there is a difference.

Right: if a problem occurs, the market will correct itself. If the market doesn’t correct itself, it’s probably because the government is somehow preventing it from doing so (taxes too high, too many regulations, whatever).

Left: if a problem occurs, the market will correct itself. If the market doesn’t correct itself, the government needs to step in and force a correction (by adjusting taxes, adding regulation, whatever).

The right thinks that government should never interfere in the market and the left thinks it should interfere as little as necessary to keep things moving. Note that, by world standards, these are far-right and moderate-right positions, really, so it can be hard to tell the difference.

This is much closer to the truth. The right sees the economy as more of a complex ecosystem that is self managing and attempting to manage it is ultimately futile because it is too complex to be successfully managed.
The left sees the economy as a game played by children which needs constant supervision by the adults to make sure everything is fair and everyone is having fun.