I have applied the term linear to describe same loose units that have failed to unite. In terms of ideas, they remain abstracts and cannot be quantified into objective outcomes. In terms of individuals, these folks do and value their own interests over the interests of the community or society. This is a social idea because communities and groups are formed by participation in their shared values.
A valid idea of a community for example is dynamic and objective that can be validly quantified into being or productive outcomes. And a dynamic idea is explained by describing the nature of forces and their elements. But a linear idea remains subjective in the realm of a single force usually it's own.
Now when you try to apply social resolutions to dynamic forces of society, a linear approach is not compatible with the elements. And a dynamic resolution involves more or less the whole process of inputs and outcomes.
And this is where Labour's policy approach to the resolution of social issues is branded linear. This is the same mistake made by the previous government when Mr. Key seemed to have the interests of the private sector only. He was effectively digging a hole to bury the social consequences by neglecting the other elements of the dynamic.
But unlike Mr Key, Mr. English's social conservative approach is more open and inclusive of other elements to social participation irrespective of status. He has already carefully offered to make good of the previous consequences. While Labour has picked up the same problem typical of one party policy, Mr. English is more universal in his conservativist approach.
Now social issues are dynamic in their makeup and are usually the consequences of several causes. But the linear approach to a resolution is not only attacking the consequence alone, but also the issues relate to one specific sector of society. That is the same as placing the ambulance at the bottom of the hill.
The major issue of housing for example is commonly shared by the young and low income families. It is addressed by building more houses. That is a direct approach to the problem. But it's not as easy as that. Housing is tied up with land values that are also connected to a geographical social cluster and related to investment and thus the economy.
When someone offers to build more houses in areas that are established with a specific culture whether a business or traditional area, he/she is treading on dangerous grounds not only for the existing residents but also for their investments.
Let's say building a cheaper social house in an established business residential area can change the price of land value of the area as well as the added tradition of existing residence and their investments.
And we have witnessed many public protests and court cases delaying some projects as claims and interests are fought.
Mr. Hone Harawira is trying to educate the Labour Party that having two strands of the same electorate can work better for that electorate than one linear party representation. He is right! If Labour comes in, it would only address the issues relating to its followers and thereby digging up another whole for future governments. And vicious cycle of booms and busts continues. It's this time boom for public sector at the expense of tax payers and busts for the business sector.
So Ardern might budget only for the cost of the social housing to be built, but the effect wipes out established values and their investments with detrimental effect to the economy. She lays the foundation of social housing by digging a hole in her budget when land values and investments plummet. And this would have major consequences to the economy.
It is the same mistake Mr. Key had made. He developed and advanced business interests for the private sector while ignoring the social consequences upon the public sector. Ardern is now offering to address the linear need of the public sector while digging a hole to bury the existent business and investment sector.
And now the government plays the role of prospective developer to find suitable land attached with ideal social cluster. There might also be surplus land for this occasion but then again planning a town community involves the dynamic of various forces.
For Labour, it targets only the cost of building social housing disregarding land values, social clusters, investment and the economy - linear. But for National is not only calculating the costs of social housing but also addressing the costs of existing values and in terms of the market - dynamic. It's not a linear cost of a unit but a dynamic cost of the process.
It's easy to miscalculate an implicit problem, but the same is endemic of one party approach to social and business issues. The previous party engaged a linear approach to benefit one sector while neglecting the other. It is inherent of political cycles to leave a hole for the incoming party to fill.
Housing, Education and Health all come under the same expectation and New Zealand tax payer are forever propping up holes in between elections. Poverty can be addressed in this dynamic approach with relations to communities, business and investments.
The universal approach can be dynamic to all social issues to deal with the cause rather than the symptoms or effects of the problem.