NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been recently trying to get myself into the mindset of an economic conservative, and I have to say I found it rather difficult.
One thing that I found most amazing is that it seems to require rather more idealism or a certain kind of naivity about the way humans tick.

Now, the general assumption is that the economy will work better the less regulations are being put upon it, and the less it's being taxed.
In order to justify that, you have to assume that companies and enterprises will behave in a moral and ethical way on their own accord. There has to be an assumption that it would be in the best interest of businesses to behave in a socially responsible way. I've heard a number of times that the public would shun businesses who don't behave that way.
But I'm surprised at these assumptions. First off, businesses are generally run by people who want to make money. If you allow them to do so in an unethical way, many of them will. It would be fair to assume that most wouldn't outright break laws, but if there are no laws?
Second, unethical business practices usually makes for cheaper production methods, which can be passed on in cheaper prices for the finished goods.
Yes, some people will check the way the goods they buy have been produced, and might be willing to spend more money on products that were produced in an ethical way. But in all honesty, can you really believe the majority of people would do that? If that was the case, FairTrade tea, coffee and chocolate would be the best-selling brand everywhere, not the slightly embarrassed 3 items sitting on the shelf in the corner in the supermarket. Same goes for organic products.

Also, there's the assumption that if people and businesses aren't taxed as highly, they will sort themselves out in regards to paying for social services and will give more to charity.
Every time I hear this, I have to think of the story of the blacksmith who tied his dog to the front of his workshop, with a sign saying that the dog would be fed by what his (the balcksmith's) customers would be willing to pay for the work he did.
The dog had starved after only a few weeks.

I'm not the most knowledgeable person here in regards to economy, so I might get the terminology wrong and might misunderstand a few things. But I do think I've got a rather realistic idea about human mentalities.
So would you say that a call for less regulation and taxation on businesses shows a high idealism and trust in humans? More than a person who would who wants to see closer regulation and higher taxation? Are people calling for more social economy just less idealistic?

Businesses try to make money. They do this by competition, and the less regulation the better they can compete. This means they will pay their employees incredibly little, and make very shoddy products because it's cheap. People would buy them because they're cheap and their employers don't pay them enough to afford quality.

No, they're not idealists, they're greedy. They're in the top percentage that would own businesses and thus profit.

i think we could more accurately say that the dupes are naive idealists, the leaders are cunning thieves

To believe that all companies would behave morally and ethically in a totally unregulated market is to believe that the Mafia doesn't exist.

To believe that all companies would behave morally and ethically in a totally unregulated market is to believe that the Mafia doesn't exist.

that's what i've always loved about the libertarian argument.

"we can't have economic democracy, that would be mob rule! what we should do is have the actual mob run things..."

Economic conservatives are simply self-styled "economists" without even the most basic economic knowledge.

ugh try to be a bit less bias Cabra

in my (British so take what you will) experience conservatives tend to be the allot more hard nosed than the embarrassing Greens that I for some reason allow myself to be associated with they also tend to be allot more disciplined and just down to Earth

course I find myself swinging conservative more and more these days so hardship is definitely one that adds to it

Now, the general assumption is that the economy will work better the less regulations are being put upon it, and the less it's being taxed.

well yeah to a certain extent that is rather true and not just of the economy

First off, businesses are generally run by people who want to make money.

I wouldn't say that for instance Richard Branson is in it purely for the money usually people have a passion (like the family buisiness or making great cakes)

Second, unethical business practices usually makes for cheaper production methods?

really? *points at things like strikes, workplace moral, riots and such*

yeah my t-shirt could be made by an Indonesian child but the guy who made my computer could of told Samsung to go fist themselves if they started lashing him

Mafia doesn't exist.

the mafia come about in a heavily regulated market silly :p

Economic conservatives are simply self-styled "economists" without even the most basic economic knowledge.

much like every other group surely?

the mafia come about in a heavily regulated market silly

True, they came up out of prohibition.

the mafia come about in a heavily regulated market silly :p

If there were no regulations at all, what would keep most, if not all, companies from behaving the way the mob does?

If there were no regulations at all, what would keep most, if not all, companies from behaving the way the mob does?

Nothing, but they'd have better PR.

I've been recently trying to get myself into the mindset of an economic conservative, and I have to say I found it rather difficult.

I don't think that you understand them. Economic conservatives do not think that businesses should be untouched by laws. Being opposed to regulations does NOT mean being opposed to laws.

What economic conservatives want is for businesses to be subject to a simple and relatively stable set of laws (for example: private property rights, contract law, and common law), instead of being subjected to the whims of economic engineering from politicians.

Once you understand that laissez faire =/= no laws, you'll understand them better.

If there were no regulations at all, what would keep most, if not all, companies from behaving the way the mob does?

companies aren't armed gangs going about committing random acts of ultra violence?

if you make an industry illegal then only criminals are going to profit or something like that I guess

What economic conservatives want is for businesses to be subject to a simple and relatively stable set of laws (for example: private property rights, contract law, and common law), instead of being subjected to the whims of economic engineering from politicians.

property rights, contract law, the law as a whole, are all bits of social and economic engineering. they cannot be anything but.

companies aren't armed gangs going about committing random acts of ultra violence?

and if that's where the profits are, why wouldn't they be?

property rights, contract law, the law as a whole, are all bits of social and economic engineering. they cannot be anything but.

Not really. They aren't efforts to determine outcomes in an economy, but to provide ground rules to let businesses take care of their own affairs, as long as they don't harm others.

But even if you want to hold this view, those aren't something determined by politicians, but by tried and true legal principles.

I've been recently trying to get myself into the mindset of an economic conservative, and I have to say I found it rather difficult.
One thing that I found most amazing is that it seems to require rather more idealism or a certain kind of naivity about the way humans tick.

Now, the general assumption is that the economy will work better the less regulations are being put upon it, and the less it's being taxed.
In order to justify that, you have to assume that companies and enterprises will behave in a moral and ethical way on their own accord. There has to be an assumption that it would be in the best interest of businesses to behave in a socially responsible way. I've heard a number of times that the public would shun businesses who don't behave that way.
But I'm surprised at these assumptions. First off, businesses are generally run by people who want to make money. If you allow them to do so in an unethical way, many of them will. It would be fair to assume that most wouldn't outright break laws, but if there are no laws?
Second, unethical business practices usually makes for cheaper production methods, which can be passed on in cheaper prices for the finished goods.
Yes, some people will check the way the goods they buy have been produced, and might be willing to spend more money on products that were produced in an ethical way. But in all honesty, can you really believe the majority of people would do that? If that was the case, FairTrade tea, coffee and chocolate would be the best-selling brand everywhere, not the slightly embarrassed 3 items sitting on the shelf in the corner in the supermarket. Same goes for organic products.

Also, there's the assumption that if people and businesses aren't taxed as highly, they will sort themselves out in regards to paying for social services and will give more to charity.
Every time I hear this, I have to think of the story of the blacksmith who tied his dog to the front of his workshop, with a sign saying that the dog would be fed by what his (the balcksmith's) customers would be willing to pay for the work he did.
The dog had starved after only a few weeks.

I'm not the most knowledgeable person here in regards to economy, so I might get the terminology wrong and might misunderstand a few things. But I do think I've got a rather realistic idea about human mentalities.
So would you say that a call for less regulation and taxation on businesses shows a high idealism and trust in humans? More than a person who would who wants to see closer regulation and higher taxation? Are people calling for more social economy just less idealistic?

I am a pretty conservative guy. Although I certainly do not speak for economic conservatism, my response might help you understand where people like me are coming from when we seek less taxation and our views of regulation. Taxation and the regulation of businesses are two separate issues.

First, I have never even heard of any conservatives who want no regulation of businesses. Maybe there were people like this before environmental problems like pollution were contemplated by economically minded people. The question is what should the role of government be in the regulation of business?

Obviously there has been no more efficient distributor of scarce resources than the free market. However, the free market does not internalize all costs. The most obvious non-internalized cost is pollution. Until there is a free-market sollution to pollution, the government needs to be involved so that we have a low-pollution environment.

Although there are other non-internalized production costs (like worker safety) I will focus on pollution as my one example of a non-internalized cost.

Modern conservatives (or at least myself who considers himself to be a modern conservative) seek a perfect marriage of domestic regulation and tariff policy. We live in a global market and if domestic firms are regulated to control pollution there goods will need to be sold for a higher price unless the environmental costs are fully subsidized by the state. Assuming that the state forces the firm to pay for the costs of controlling their pollution output, this will necessarily cause an increase of the price of the product.

If a foreign country does not regulate pollution this will allow the foreign firm to sell its products at a lower cost and gain a comparative advantage over the pollution regulating nation's firms.

As a conservative American I cannot tell the Chinese government how to regulate pollution. I can however tell my own government how to regulate pollution. Since pollution is a global problem, Americans are harmed by Chinese pollution. I also want American firms to do well economically because this will help with employment, tax revenues, innovation, and an increasing standard of living.

Therefore, in order to reconcile these desires I want my government to force the internalization of pollution costs on imports by tariffs on imports from countries that do not regulate pollution at least as rigorously as domestic firms are regulated.

Now on the subject of taxation, I want lower taxes to encourage doemstic and foreign investment in my country's economy. If this means that we will need to lower spending that is fine with me. There are many areas of government spending that could be provided for by charity.

I suspect that your lack of faith in charities comes from the fact that you are a liberal and run in a liberal circle of people. Conservatives in the US pay a lot more to charity than liberals do. I think that is why conservatives have more faith in charity than the liberals do.

Philosophically I really prefer charity to government spending on "do-goodery". I do not want to be forced to give to charitable causes that I do not see as a priority in the infinite array of needs addressed by charity. It just seems like charity is more in keeping with the concept of individual liberty than public funds allocated by a legislature for "do-goodery".

In summary, government has the important role of regulating business practices and enforcing private contracts. The government should be very hesitant to involve itself in the economy beyond that point. Charity has an important role in society. This role should not be usurped by government any more than public economic planning should usurp the role of the free market in the allocation of scarce resources.

Although I do not claim to speak for all economic conservatives, I hope that this gives you a better glimpse of how economic conservatives think. I hope that you view us as less naive or idealistic.

property rights, contract law, the law as a whole, are all bits of social and economic engineering. they cannot be anything but.

I don't beleive thats what the poster was getting at though

and if that's where the profits are, why wouldn't they be?

but thats not where the profits are though gangs may imitate corporations they do not become them

companies aren't armed gangs going about committing random acts of ultra violence?

if you make an industry illegal then only criminals are going to profit or something like that I guess

The mob doesn't go about committing random acts of ultra violence. The mob uses violence as a tool to make more money. You can charge people a lot more money for your product if you threaten to kill them if they don't pay.

Sorry my last post was rather long. I like it though. I think it is one of my better posts. *sound of me tooting my own horn*

The mob doesn't go about committing random acts of ultra violence.

have you not seen "foot soldiers" random acts of violence to show how respectable they are to superiors?

You can charge people a lot more money for your product if you threaten to kill them if they don't pay.

actually you will find that a lack of police presence is what causes racketeering (unless its the police themselves thats is)

Sorry my last post was rather long. I like it though. I think it is one of my better posts. *sound of me tooting my own horn*

I read it you just sound like a green conservative hippy though :tongue:

Depends what you mean by "conservatives"; if you're referring to capitalism purists, I think it more so depends what they value, than their "idealism."

In order to justify that, you have to assume that companies and enterprises will behave in a moral and ethical way on their own accord.
Actually, no, it's quite the opposite; the supposed "father of modern capitalism" Adam Smith said "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."

The idea isn't that you expect companies to behave ethically or morally, but that you expect that if everyone's acting out of self-interest (which would be considered "selfishness" in the context of our current social notions of ethics) this will create an unintended social order in which they inadvertently benefit other people.

There has to be an assumption that it would be in the best interest of businesses to behave in a socially responsible way.
Depends which conservative you ask. Some say that even if not, it doesn't justify government intervention to promote social responsibility. Not that I agree with that perspective either, just saying that you shouldn't confuse those who would consider capitalism ethical with those who would say that its immorality doesn't justify government intervention against it.

First off, businesses are generally run by people who want to make money.
Again, that is a key core assumption within economics, if not more so within pro-capitalism economic reasoning.

Yes, some people will check the way the goods they buy have been produced, and might be willing to spend more money on products that were produced in an ethical way. But in all honesty, can you really believe the majority of people would do that?
Or perhaps that the majority of people have a right to not do so? Again, I don't agree with it, but again, it's not necessarily about what they think will happen so much as what they value; I think the idea is more so that people should be ALLOWED to behave unethically. I've noticed on some youtube video of some Obama supporter with cancer some people were saying things along the lines of "I know you have cancer but that doesn't give you a right to my tax dollars, I don't have to help you..."

I'm not the most knowledgeable person here in regards to economy, so I might get the terminology wrong and might misunderstand a few things.
I'm guessing that's what happened with the capitalism-idealism thing.

Don't get me wrong, I don't particularily like the laissez-faire purist approach to things myself, but I think it has more to do with a "we have to accept what the market causes" mentality than a "the market always promotes virtue" mentality; though again, it depends what kind of conservatives you ask.

Ironically, I've heard SOCIALISM being referred to as having "an idealistic sense of human morality"; that people say that BECAUSE people act out of self-interest we shouldn't intrude on the market, since that would reduce the profit-incentive for efficiency and hard work.

For example, here's a video I came across a while ago. Can't use sound on the computer I'm typing this from, but I think I recall well enough what it said, and it was if anything portraying socialism as being founded on an unrealistically optimistic perspective of human nature:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

So yeah. I think I've emphasized enough that while I don't quite agree with the perspective, you should be careful not to misrepresent it.

have you not seen "foot soldiers" random acts of violence to show how respectable they are to superiors?

Your knowledge of organized crime is derived straight from bad movies and Law and Order, eh? Even in The Godfather, they didn't just use violence for violence's sake, except for Sonny.


actually you will find that a lack of police presence is what causes racketeering (unless its the police themselves thats is)

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. If there are no regulations on what a company can do to earn a profit, why wouldn't they threaten the use of violence? Why wouldn't they make intentionally dangerous products?

I read it you just sound like a green conservative hippy though :tongue:

I may very well be a conservative hippie. In my opinion it is hard to be a hippie without being into personal liberty and it is downright impossible to be a conservative without being into personal liberty.

Although the environment is most salient to me (I think conservatives need to put the "conserve" into conservatism, the same concept is equally applicable to worker safety, and other issues. I also think that tariffs are a great tool to be used as economic sanctions for human rights abuses. Although I think that military deployment is far more effective.

..Obviously there has been no more efficient distributor of scarce resources than the free market.
...if domestic firms are regulated to control pollution there goods will need to be sold for a higher price...
...There are many areas of government spending that could be provided for by charity.
....

Do you have any evidence for these claims?

Because I frankly doubt them.

Since when did 'economic conservatives' = laissez faire anarcho-capitalists?

I'm not the most knowledgeable person here in regards to economy, so I might get the terminology wrong and might misunderstand a few things. But I do think I've got a rather realistic idea about human mentalities.
So would you say that a call for less regulation and taxation on businesses shows a high idealism and trust in humans? More than a person who would who wants to see closer regulation and higher taxation? Are people calling for more social economy just less idealistic?

A person who supports fiscal stimulus' like tax cuts and privatization by no means inherently supports tax cuts on EVERYTHING and the removal safety and ethical regulations for example. I think you have got your terminology mixed up, you seem to be addressing more laissez faire libertarianism.

Your knowledge of organized crime is derived straight from bad movies and Law and Order, eh? Even in The Godfather, they didn't just use violence for violence's sake, except for Sonny.

I also read <.< Freakonomics >.>

*feels so uncool*

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. If there are no regulations on what a company can do to earn a profit, why wouldn't they threaten the use of violence? Why wouldn't they make intentionally dangerous products?

well does anyone buy American cars these day? :)

SNIP

go smoke your hemp trousers hippie! *police brutalizes*

also your still not going to win elections this way no matter what David Cameron thinks

Since when did 'economic conservatives' = laissez faire anarcho-capitalists?

when we could stereotype the world by what we see on nsg

Not really. They aren't efforts to determine outcomes in an economy, but to provide ground rules to let businesses take care of their own affairs, as long as they don't harm others.

But even if you want to hold this view, those aren't something determined by politicians, but by tried and true legal principles.

haha

Since when did 'economic conservatives' = laissez faire anarcho-capitalists?

since their prominent public arguments require it of them, presumably.

it is downright impossible to be a conservative without being into personal liberty.

haha

since their prominent public arguments require it of them, presumably.

Who?

edit: bare in mind that many even consider the democrats economic conservatives.

Who?

edit: bare in mind that many even consider the democrats economic conservatives.

good point. however, probably almost none of the people i take to be making the arguments committing them to full blown an-capdom actually are an-caps. they just find the arguments convenient from time to time.

basically, i'm thinking of large swaths of the republican party leadership and talking heads.

ugh try to be a bit less bias Cabra

in my (British so take what you will) experience conservatives tend to be the allot more hard nosed than the embarrassing Greens that I for some reason allow myself to be associated with they also tend to be allot more disciplined and just down to Earth

course I find myself swinging conservative more and more these days so hardship is definitely one that adds to it



well yeah to a certain extent that is rather true and not just of the economy



I wouldn't say that for instance Richard Branson is in it purely for the money usually people have a passion (like the family buisiness or making great cakes)



really? *points at things like strikes, workplace moral, riots and such*

yeah my t-shirt could be made by an Indonesian child but the guy who made my computer could of told Samsung to go fist themselves if they started lashing him


I prefer misanthropic bastard thankyou.

Do you have any evidence for these claims?

Because I frankly doubt them.

You doubt that free markets are better distributors of scarce resources? With an upraised eyebrow I cite Adam Smith as my source and the fact that the countries with the highest GDPs have free markets.

Why do you doubt that forcing fims to internalize the pollution costs of their products makes their products more expensive. If a cost is internalized it raises the cost. This is self evident. Can you be specific about what your doubts are about this?

An excellent example of governmental roles that could be performed by charity is the public dole. Food Stamps (now called SNAP I think) provide a similar function as charitable organizations' food banks or soup kitchens. Also, in the USA public money is spent on medical research and support of the arts.

With an upraised eyebrow I cite Adam Smith as my source and the fact that the countries with the highest GDPs have free markets.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_percap-economy-gdp-per-capita

I would like to first off say that no nation has an entirely free market (except maybe Somalia), so its a moot point to argue that nations with "free markets" have higher GDP since no such nation exists. However, the nations that top the GDP per capita list are those traditionally thought of as socialist. Adam Smith wrote a book, reality provides a stronger case than his words do. Great theories, but if a theory doesn't stand up to rigorous testing, it doesn't hold much water.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_percap-economy-gdp-per-capita

I would like to first off say that no nation has an entirely free market (except maybe Somalia), so its a moot point to argue that nations with "free markets" have higher GDP since no such nation exists. However, the nations that top the GDP per capita list are those traditionally thought of as socialist. Adam Smith wrote a book, reality provides a stronger case than his words do. Great theories, but if a theory doesn't stand up to rigorous testing, it doesn't hold much water.

All of the top ten countries on that list have economies that I consider pretty free market. I understand your point though. All of those countries have a pretty free market (i.e. there is little central planning, and competetive economic forces are allowed to resolve most resource distribution)

All of the top ten countries on that list have economies that I consider pretty free market. I understand your point though. All of those countries have a pretty free market (i.e. there is little central planning, and competetive economic forces are allowed to resolve most resource distribution)
I thought Norway and Sweden were considered somewhat socialist. o.o

That said, I don't like GDP as a measure of economic well-being anyway. There's a certain quote I came across in my economics textbook back in high school, here's a youtube video of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77IdKFqXbUY

Well I think what your calling economic conservative is referred to as economic liberalism. and classical and neo liberalism.

Most of the ones I rub shoulders with believe laws should be enforced. No laws at all is not economic liberalism but Anarchy.

Now for source of labor. The laws should be enforce at the point the product is made. The belief is that once a country attains economic success it will spill over to other reforms as well.

Now the big thing in anti business minds now is to point at the banks and say that was caused by deregulation. most of your economic liberals say that the bank failure was brought on not by deregulation but by government interference in the interest rates.

I thought Norway and Sweden were considered somewhat socialist. o.o


Some people do, those people are wrong.

Businesses try to make money. They do this by competition, and the less regulation the better they can compete. This means they will pay their employees incredibly little, and make very shoddy products because it's cheap. People would buy them because they're cheap and their employers don't pay them enough to afford quality.

No, they're not idealists, they're greedy. They're in the top percentage that would own businesses and thus profit.

You both seem to be confusing economic conservativism with laissez-faire economics. I am economically conservative, but I do support some business regulations, of course, as almost everyone I know does.

I do agree with minimum wage laws, and some safety regulations, but I also agree with letting employers, and consumers decide which companies should thrive based largely on their own merits.

Lassiez faire works on paper because the business would compete for workers buy offering higher wages and other benefits. Problem is they didn't do that in the begining so the free market system got a bad reputation. Now a days I think if we released all regulations on both business and unions that the two forces would balance each other out and that everyone would win.

I think you have got your terminology mixed up, you seem to be addressing more laissez faire libertarianism.

that's not eve libertarianism that's more corporate Anarchism.

Lassiez faire works on paper because the business would compete for workers buy offering higher wages and other benefits. Problem is they didn't do that in the begining so the free market system got a bad reputation. Now a days I think if we released all regulations on both business and unions that the two forces would balance each other out and that everyone would win.

the reason at the beginning they don't is the supply of labor is higher. Once and Economy has fully industrialized and the majority of people whoa re going to move to the city from the country have moved already that's when labor prices sky rocket.

I think now would be a perfect time to release all the restrictions on the economy. Except for taxes. Once we get out of this recession we should raise the corporate tax and force companies to pay it before they buy stuff.

You doubt that free markets are better distributors of scarce resources? With an upraised eyebrow I cite Adam Smith as my source and the fact that the countries with the highest GDPs have free markets.

Adam Smith wrote a lot. Be more specific.

Please describe the relationship between GDP and allocation of scarce resources, then provide the evidence to back your claim.

Why do you doubt that forcing fims to internalize the pollution costs of their products makes their products more expensive. If a cost is internalized it raises the cost. This is self evident. Can you be specific about what your doubts are about this?

Why do you assume it has to cost more to pollute less?

An excellent example of governmental roles that could be performed by charity is the public dole. Food Stamps (now called SNAP I think) provide a similar function as charitable organizations' food banks or soup kitchens. Also, in the USA public money is spent on medical research and support of the arts.

Now show that these charities have consistently brought in enough money that they could cover the costs of the allocated current government funding.

Thank you.

You both seem to be confusing economic conservativism with laissez-faire economics. I am economically conservative, but I do support some business regulations, of course, as almost everyone I know does.

I do agree with minimum wage laws, and some safety regulations, but I also agree with letting employers, and consumers decide which companies should thrive based largely on their own merits.
So what exactly separates economic "conservatism" both from laissez-faire economics and other economic ideologies?

Adam Smith wrote a lot. Be more specific.

Please describe the relationship between GDP and allocation of scarce resources, then provide the evidence to back your claim.



Why do you assume it has to cost more to pollute less?



Now show that these charities have consistently brought in enough money that they could cover the costs of the allocated current government funding.

Thank you.

Goodness you ask for a lot of work on my part. I do not have the time to look up everything. I am not being paid to post here. I will point out that I am presently about 3/4 through the book "New Ideas From Dead Economists" it is not really a very well titled book. It is basically a summary of major economists views.

As to the issue of charity, I have a book in my cabin and I am trying to recall the title. It is a good book about the history of charity and welfare and social attitudes concerning these activities. By the time I find that book this thread will probably be over. :(

I will try to answer your question about pollution though. Before there were any pollution regulations (ever read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair?) pollution was super duper bad. The assumption is that if there were no pollution regulations, firms would pollute because they had no financial reason not to ignore this cost and let it be paid by society).

I know that platinum type metals are used to reduce air pollution. They are certainly not cheap. I am sure that there are all manner of filters for air and water discharge and they are certainly not free.