Should Conservatism be Anti-Capitalist or Capitalist skeptic?

[PC2]

1> That hasn't been "capitalism with a social safety net". It's been "mixed economies", where the "mix" is a combination of capitalist and socialist principles and systems. The purer forms of capitalism that marked the 19th and early 20th Centuries were nowhere near as economically prosperous. I think it's more than a little dishonest to focus exclusively on the capitalist principles as the driver of that prosperity.

Yes we have a mixed economy. It is simply a fact that the majority of resources have originated from private organizations, which then fueled the government through taxation.

[Theodarzna]

Yes we have a mixed economy. It is simply a fact that the majority of resources have originated from private organizations, which then fueled the government through taxation.

I am of the belief that the demographic shifts/trends towards aging and declining youth over all partly fuel the global economic anemia. I think honestly we have reached the limit of the Market as an entity, and the costs are now a bit parasitic. Though I cannot fully make any direct causal link between this and declining natalism and thus shrinking markets and tax base I do believe firmly the two are linked.

Alas I am not an economist, I am a historian, ... mainly of languages.... mainly of Celtic languages of all things.

[xChurch]

I am of the belief that the demographic shifts/trends towards aging and declining youth over all partly fuel the global economic anemia. I think honestly we have reached the limit of the Market as an entity, and the costs are now a bit parasitic. Though I cannot fully make any direct causal link between this and declining natalism and thus shrinking markets and tax base I do believe firmly the two are linked.

Alas I am not an economist, I am a historian, ... mainly of languages.... mainly of Celtic languages of all things.

I think that has more to do with income inequality than demographic trends. Younger people have less disposable income and are therefore less money is being pushed around the economy in favour of the wealthy keeping their money in banks, stocks and other finacial services.

[PC2]

I am of the belief that the demographic shifts/trends towards aging and declining youth over all partly fuel the global economic anemia. I think honestly we have reached the limit of the Market as an entity, and the costs are now a bit parasitic. Though I cannot fully make any direct causal link between this and declining natalism and thus shrinking markets and tax base I do believe firmly the two are linked.

Alas I am not an economist, I am a historian, ... mainly of languages.... mainly of Celtic languages of all things.

But what was your economic argument again? Either you support the mixed system or you propose a new economic system.

- - - Updated - - -

Ideas like a universal income only represents a different way of splitting the budget pie. For example, the US federal budget is around $4 trillion, we could turn that into a universal income, but you would have to choose which programs to take the money from. The biggest being Medicare, SS, and unemployment.

[Endus]

Yes we have a mixed economy. It is simply a fact that the majority of resources have originated from private organizations, which then fueled the government through taxation.

And?

Social ownership is not the same as government ownership. Employee-owned companies are socialist in concept. Market competition, likewise, isn't a capitalist concept, uniquely; market systems long predate capitalist theory, and are key elements in multiple non-capitalist economic systems, mercantilism and market socialism in particular.

[PC2]

And?

And I guess we have no disagreement. Were you proposing a new economic system or something? I hear a lot of complaining, not many solutions.

[Theodarzna]

But what was your economic argument again? Either you support the mixed system or you propose a new economic system.

- - - Updated - - -

Ideas like a universal income only represents a different way of splitting the budget pie. For example, the US federal budget is around $4 trillion, we could turn that into a universal income, but you would have to choose which programs to take the money from. The biggest being Medicare, SS, and unemployment.

I would like to, but being not an economist I cannot exactly consider myself qualified to do so.

[Daedius]

Capitalism is flawed... it only serves to make the (really) rich richer [most notably the "1%"] while keeping the poor poorer. It only takes a few such rich individuals to fuck up the rest... and it's the root cause of the recession throughout, most recently of 2007.

[Endus]

And I guess we have no disagreement. Were you proposing a new economic system or something? I hear a lot of complaining, not many solutions.

My point was that you're giving capitalist principles far too much credit for modern prosperity in the developed world.

[PC2]

My point was that you're giving capitalist principles far too much credit for modern prosperity in the developed world.

I'm just acknowledging facts. The USA has always been dominated by the private sectors contribution to GDP, that domination along with some social and government planning has created one of the most prosperous societies ever.

[Theodarzna]

Capitalism is flawed... it only serves to make the (really) rich richer [most notably the "1%"] while keeping the poor poorer. It only takes a few such rich individuals to fuck up the rest... and it's the root cause of the recession throughout, most recently of 2007.

I think to me its more menacing because of its transience, IMHO we have reached a global limit since the earth is completely saturated, there are no new markets to open up, and its nowhere to go but down now.

What do we do now?

[Austilias]

My point was that you're giving capitalist principles far too much credit for modern prosperity in the developed world.

Anything short of kowtowing to Das Kapital seems unacceptable to certain people. Mixed economies are overwhelmingly capitalist; you're seriously overstating the socialist part, no doubt for your own ends.

OT, as a self-professed (small 'c') conservative myself, I have no real attachment to capitalism; it is a tool, which has sadly come to dominate (and in many instances define) the ideology I generally maintain. Indeed, in these modern times I'm increasingly unconvinced of its merit; given that capitalism is going hand-in-hand with the globaliszation that wishes to deprive nations of their borders/sovereignty and generally that which makes them different/distinct.

The result (or intended result) is a worldwide pool of entirely interchangeable workers (and consumers) who are not distinct in any way; particularly in regards to that which is priceless, such as culture. In this respect they are actually aided by many on the 'Left' who, being moral/cultural relativists, espouse multiculturalism whilst failing to realize that it always ends in the formation of a new monoculture; perhaps thinking that if there might one day be a global monoculture, there will no longer be the cultural problems we experience now. I wouldn't give them that much credit in regards to forethought, however.

I don't think privatization is always better than nationalization, and I can see plenty of merit in protectionist policies; to name but two examples.

[taliey]

I think to me its more menacing because of its transience, IMHO we have reached a global limit since the earth is completely saturated, there are no new markets to open up, and its nowhere to go but down now.

What do we do now?

You're sounding like Thomas Malthus.

[PC2]

I think to me its more menacing because of its transience, IMHO we have reached a global limit since the earth is completely saturated, there are no new markets to open up, and its nowhere to go but down now.

What do we do now?

Nothing you are saying here means anything. Are you literally claiming the economy is going to regularly shrink in the coming years?

[Kalis]

I think to me its more menacing because of its transience, IMHO we have reached a global limit since the earth is completely saturated, there are no new markets to open up, and its nowhere to go but down now.

What do we do now?

Much of Africa, large swathes of Asia, South America, all untapped markets for many sectors.

We haven't reached a global limit until everyone has all the latest consumer goods, is insured up to the wazoo, etc.

[Theodarzna]

Nothing you are saying here means anything. Are you literally claiming the economy is going to regularly shrink in the coming years?

I claim that we will likely remain in a semi-recession / anemia as the new normal with periodic bubbles emerging here and there until some solution emerges. Basically my point, however blunt, is that the Planet is the limit since so far Usagi Tsukino and the Sailor Scouts aren't out there to buy things and theres no martians interested in BMW's, With total saturation comes the problem of the end of growth.

Since all boats are supposed to rise with growth what happens when we hit that ceiling? That deal of rising prosperity can't be upheld if there is nowhere left to grow. Poor will remain poor since there will always be a gradient, and we will never achieve a point of absolute prosperity as in everyone is rich..... not under the current model and laws anyway.

[Kalis]

I claim that we will likely remain in a semi-recession / anemia as the new normal with periodic bubbles emerging here and there until some solution emerges. Basically my point, however blunt, is that the Planet is the limit since so far Usagi Tsukino and the Sailor Scouts aren't out there to buy things and theres no martians interested in BMW's, With total saturation comes the problem of the end of growth.

Since all boats are supposed to rise with growth what happens when we hit that ceiling? That deal of rising prosperity can't be upheld if there is nowhere left to grow. Poor will remain poor since there will always be a gradient, and we will never achieve a point of absolute prosperity as in everyone is rich..... not under the current model and laws anyway.

We aren't anywhere near saturation.

[Grummgug]

While obviously this might appear heretical to conventional American and to a great extent European Conservative movements, But I think a case can be made that the full throated embrace of Capitalism and Free Marketeering or Randian ideas is cancerous to the very society Conservatism wishes to protect.

Conservatism is center-right. Conservatives believe in free market principles that are governed by government regulation. Randians are Randians and conservatives are conservatives and thy don't intersect. Conservatives DON'T wish to protect a "full throated embrace of capitalism".

So, your definition is off right there.

[PC2]

I claim that we will likely remain in a semi-recession / anemia as the new normal with periodic bubbles emerging here and there until some solution emerges. Basically my point, however blunt, is that the Planet is the limit since so far Usagi Tsukino and the Sailor Scouts aren't out there to buy things and theres no martians interested in BMW's, With total saturation comes the problem of the end of growth.

Since all boats are supposed to rise with growth what happens when we hit that ceiling? That deal of rising prosperity can't be upheld if there is nowhere left to grow. Poor will remain poor since there will always be a gradient, and we will never achieve a point of absolute prosperity as in everyone is rich..... not under the current model and laws anyway.

I'm still not sure what your point is. We are not yet close to a world where 7 billion people live comfy middle class lives, I dont think anyone is arguing that. Even without further significant annual GDP growth, there are still ways to improve life. From increasing agricultural efficiency, destroying starvation in 3rd world countries, to using science to find superior clean energy.

[Deleted]

Yes we have a mixed economy. It is simply a fact that the majority of resources have originated from private organizations, which then fueled the government through taxation.

Which once again proves the importance of the private sector as the most significant source of resources. Practically all the money that the government collects as taxes has been originally created by private organizations -- something that socialists always forget. The private sector basically feeds the entire society. Strangulate the private sector too much, and eventually you strangulate yourself.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't have taxation or welfare programs, but we should never forget what's the source of all our wealth.